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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful context beyond that by disclosing that the result is an aggregated multi-metric snapshot plus a curated "attention" list, which shapes how the agent should interpret the output. It does not mention failure behavior (e.g. invalid site name) despite a check_site_name sibling, keeping this from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition and ending with the usage directive. Nothing is redundant and no sentence fails to earn 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?

For a read-only aggregator with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, contents, and placement in the workflow well. The only minor gap is omission of edge-case behavior such as what happens with an unknown site name, which the check_site_name sibling hints is a real failure mode.

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 both site_name and the enum-constrained range are fully documented in the schema, including the 24h default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond referencing traffic metrics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("One-call health summary for a site") and enumerates exactly what comes back: traffic KPIs, error rate, response time, bandwidth, uptime, and an attention list. This makes it clearly distinguishable from the narrower siblings like get_site_analytics, get_site_bandwidth, and get_site_uptime.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: "Start here before drilling into specific tools," which tells the agent both when to use this tool and when to reach for the granular siblings instead. This is a clear entry-point routing rule rather than an implied one.

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