Get most used routes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: a hard cap of 20 results, ranking by call count, per-endpoint credit consumption, the default 24-hour window, and the 1-year range ceiling. The trailing 'Account metadata read.' hints at the credential/account scope.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core capability and tightly written across three short sentences with no filler. The trailing fragment 'Account metadata read.' is slightly cryptic and could have been folded into the main sentences, but overall it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so well: the top 20 endpoints, call counts, and credits consumed. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has nearly everything needed to call it correctly, with only sibling routing left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents account, start_time and end_time, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the time-range semantics (default 24h, max 1 year) but adds nothing about the account parameter or ISO 8601 formatting beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Returns your top 20 most called API endpoints ranked by call count, along with total credits consumed per endpoint.' It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts the closely related siblings (scrapecreators_get_daily_usage, scrapecreators_get_request_history), so the agent must infer differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the default window (last 24 hours) and the maximum supported range (up to 1 year), which is useful operating context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against the overlapping usage/history siblings, so the choice between them is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.