Check analytics tracking health

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds a behavioral note about disabled optional features being warnings only when marked as expected, but overall does not significantly expand beyond annotations.

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 concise at two sentences, with the first sentence listing core checks and the second clarifying behavior for disabled features. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly more clarity on parameters could improve.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no required ones, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on input constraints and output. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description does not mention the lookback window or website limit scope.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the burden on the description is high. However, it only loosely references some parameters (e.g., 'custom-event availability' for 'expectEvents', 'recorder configuration' for 'expectReplay') but fails to explain key parameters like 'websiteLimit', 'lookbackHours', 'staleAfterHours', 'minimumPageviews', and 'dropThresholdPercent'.

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 audits visible websites for specific issues like stale traffic, traffic drops, domain mismatches, etc., using a specific verb ('Audit') and a distinct resource ('visible websites'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_metrics' or 'get_pageviews' which are for data retrieval, not health checks.

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 use for auditing tracking health but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. No direct comparison with sibling tools or conditions for usage are provided.

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