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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds useful behavior: the tool supports all filters and returns all-time data when dates are omitted. No contradictions with annotations were found.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose and metric list are front-loaded, and the all-time behavior is stated in a short secondary sentence. Every part earns its place.

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 the rich input schema, output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it. The key behavioral nuance about omitting dates is included, and the extensive parameter details are already present in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine parameter-level meaning beyond the schema by noting that omitting dates produces all-time data and that all filters apply. This is useful semantic context for the many date and filter parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Get aggregated site metrics' — and explicitly lists the exact metrics returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_breakdown or get_timeseries, which focus on disaggregated or time-series data.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool for an aggregated overview, with optional date range and filters, and omit dates for all-time data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'aggregated' framing and tool title make the intended use apparent.

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