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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read, so the description doesn't need to cover that. It adds real behavioral context beyond them: the caveats attached to the figures must be read before reporting and passed on where they change meaning, and the 'found' flag distinguishes an error still thrown over the range from one that has stopped. It could go further on what happens for an unknown id or an id outside the range.

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?

Almost every clause is substantive, but the whole thing is a single run-on sentence with semicolon-chained output fields ('its message, at, the file and line it was thrown at, and page'), which is hard to parse on first read. A short lead sentence plus a structured list of returned fields would carry the same information far more efficiently.

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 carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates the echo of site and range, the link, found status, message, at/file/line/page, totals with previous and change, last_thrown, the series, and the capped top breakdowns. Combined with the caveat warning, an agent has enough to call it and to report results responsibly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance the schema lacks — the id comes from a copied script error or a get_site_breakdown row — and delegates the range presets to get_site_summary's definitions, which is meaningful cross-tool semantics. It does not explain how competing range forms (range vs. from/to vs. days/ending) interact, leaving that to the schema descriptions.

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 names a specific resource — one script error, identified by id, originating from a copied script error or a script_error row of get_site_breakdown — which lets an agent tell it apart from get_site_breakdown and the other site-level siblings. It is phrased as a noun clause rather than a verb phrase ('One of the errors...'), which slightly blunts the action, but the subject matter is unambiguous.

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?

It gives concrete use cases: 'for fixing it, and after a fix, checking it has stopped,' and points at the parameter conventions of get_site_summary. What is missing is any explicit when-not or a named alternative for adjacent needs (e.g. listing all errors versus fetching one), so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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