Break down website metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that visitor identifiers are excluded, which is a behavioral detail. However, no other behaviors (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are disclosed.

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 two sentences, efficiently conveying the core purpose and a key exclusion. No redundant information.

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?

The description covers the output nature and exclusion of visitor identifiers, but omits guidance on filtering, pagination, and the extensive capabilities implied by the schema. With 8 parameters and nested objects, more context is needed for a complete understanding.

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 low (38%), but the description does not describe any parameters beyond listing possible values for the 'type' parameter. It does not explain the meaning of required parameters like websiteId, start, end, or the complex filters object, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 states the tool returns a 'ranked aggregate Umami metric breakdown' for dimensions like paths, referrers, countries, etc. It also notes what is excluded ('visitor identifiers'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 obtaining metric breakdowns but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pageviews or get_website_stats. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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