Query Pirsch analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the metric must be documented and the domain explicitly selected, which is useful scope context. It does not describe pagination, rate limits, or error behavior, but with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action 'Read'. It is concise, clear, and every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 tool with 45 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain the relationship to sibling tools, the role of domainId despite being optional, or how to combine filters. The output schema and annotations reduce some burden, but an agent would need external documentation to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% across 45 parameters, and the description fails to compensate. It does not explain how to specify the metric, how to select the domain via domainId, which parameters act as filters, or any mutual exclusivity. The only hint is 'explicitly selected domain', which is vague and not mapped to the schema (domainId is optional, only metric is required).

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as a Pirsch Analytics API v1 metric, with constraints that it handles one metric for an explicitly selected domain and filter. This distinguishes it from siblings like pirsch_list_domains and pirsch_compare_periods, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

The description implies usage for single-metric queries by saying 'one documented metric' and 'explicitly selected domain', which hints at prerequisites like selecting a domain and providing filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over pirsch_list_domains or pirsch_compare_periods, nor does it mention needing domain IDs from list_domains.

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