zins_get_web_traffic_by_location

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds beyond that: row structure per location, the include_trend=True behavior producing a time-series under `trend`, and the window constraint. No annotation contradiction exists.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: purpose first, then row/trend behavior, then constraint. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level response shape but leaves many parameter interactions and defaults undocumented. It is adequate for orientation but not fully complete for such a parameter-rich tool.

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 only 11%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for include_trend, hints at traffic_unit via "transactions or bytes," and points to time-window inputs. However, limit, start_time/end_time, start_days_ago/end_days_ago, and trend_interval remain largely unexplained.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get web traffic aggregated per location." The aggregation-by-location qualifier clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like zins_get_web_traffic_no_grouping, making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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?

Provides clear usage context: read-only analytics and the required 7- or 14-day historical window. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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