Get daily site views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that this is a read-only counting operation and that data is delivered over a trailing window, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose the response structure, whether results are returned as a time series, or how the lookback window behaves by default.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It directly states the key returned metrics and the time scope, and every word contributes meaning. This is an example of efficient minimal description.

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?

For a one-parameter analytics getter with no output schema, this is minimally adequate: an agent can infer it returns daily view and session counts and can invoke it with defaults. But gaps remain: the response format is unknown, days_back is not connected to the trailing window, and no distinction is made between unique sessions and unique visitors from sibling tools. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more context would meaningfully improve selection and interpretation.

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?

The input schema provides type, default, and bounds for days_back but no semantic description, giving 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'trailing window' loosely maps to days_back, but the description never names the parameter, explains that it controls the lookback period, or describes the effect of changing it. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly identifies the output as daily page-view counts and unique session counts over a trailing window, which names a specific resource and metric set. The 'get' verb is present in the tool name, and the analytic focus is recognizable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_unique_visitors_count, but the metric wording is specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_conversion_stats, get_unique_visitors_count, or get_audience_breakdown. The phrase 'trailing window' implies a time-series use case, but the description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing recommendations. An agent is left to infer selection from the name alone.

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