Get analytics traffic report

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description earns credit for adding real behavioral context: `totals: null` means the collector has no basis to report rather than zero traffic, only healthy_zero/healthy_data states carry real numbers, modeled influence is excluded, and the call consumes no credits. This null-vs-zero disclosure is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 endpoint and returned data, followed by a clearly labelled HONESTY block; every sentence carries information. The honesty sentence is dense with backticked jargon, which slightly hurts scannability but not substance.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned sections and explaining the null semantics and sampling/evidence flags, which is strong for a read-only report tool. What remains thin is guidance on how the returned data relates to the sibling overview report.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters including the propertyId-alone constraint and the 409 property_scope_ambiguous failure. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema carries (baseline 3).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the AI-referral Traffic report via GET /api/v1/analytics/traffic') and enumerates the payload it returns (totals, per-engine series, landing pages, channel split, evidence provenance, sampling flags). It is clearly distinct from get_overview/get_property in subject matter, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: it notes the call 'does not use credits' (a cost consideration) and tells the agent how to interpret results, but never says when to reach for this report versus analytics_get_overview or analytics_get_property, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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