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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses rich behavior: autopilot state, weekly cap calculation, platformNote, locked access for non-Pro+ sites, and the exact bucketing of pages. This gives an agent substantial operational context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the field breakdown is organized into labeled sections (autopilot, results, pages, upNext). It is dense and lengthy, but the detail is justified because there is no output schema.

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 one fully documented parameter, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description does the necessary work by explaining the returned sections, access behavior, and the locked condition. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the site parameter. The description does not add syntax or selection guidance beyond saying the tool is 'for a site'.

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 the specific resource ('Updates overview for a site') and clarifies it matches the Overview tab summary. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling list_update_opportunities for individual rows, so an agent can tell what it returns and when it is the right overview tool.

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 explicitly routes agents to list_update_opportunities for individual rows and notes that sites without Pro+ return locked=true. It does not explicitly compare against get_overview, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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