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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns candidates when no focus page is set, explains the meaning of 'noise' and 'miss' verdicts, and notes the Search Console dependency for candidates. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's output and external requirements.

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 detailed but well-organized, front-loading the main purpose and then enumerating the components. Every sentence adds value, though it is somewhat long. It is appropriately structured for the complexity of the return data.

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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns: the owner's brief, Search Console comparisons, issues, conversion checkup with 'fail' items, change log with verdicts, and fallback to candidates when no focus page is set. It also defines key terms like 'noise' and 'miss'. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output and behavior without additional documentation.

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?

The input schema has a single required parameter siteId with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to add any meaning for the parameter, leaving the agent to infer that siteId is likely a site identifier but without explicit confirmation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to return the focus page and everything needed to judge it, including the owner's brief, Search Console numbers, issues, conversion checkup, and change log. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_focus_page by focusing on retrieval and even describes the fallback behavior when no focus page is set.

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 is implied by the tool's name and content, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like set_focus_page. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so an agent must infer that this is the read-only getter for focus page data.

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