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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: this is an aggregate/rollup that bundles a fixed set of signals plus weekly deltas and portal links, implying a single call replaces many. It does not mention latency or payload size for such a broad aggregate.

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?

Front-loaded with the routing instruction and the payload enumeration is dense rather than padded. The middle is one very long comma-chained sentence that is harder to scan than a short bulleted list would be, which costs a point.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it does so by enumerating every section of the brief including derived values (health score with weekly change, top 3 decisions with fix price and orderability). An agent knows exactly what it will get and can decide not to call the detail tools.

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% and the single site_id parameter is documented with its provenance ('as returned by get_portfolio or list_sites'), which is stronger than the description provides. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 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?

Opens with a specific imperative and scope ('Start here for one website') and then enumerates the exact contents of the answer — plan/scan state, reachability, SSL expiry, health score, AI share, root causes, top decisions, AI visibility, recent changes, portal links. This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_site_metrics or get_ai_visibility, which cover single slices.

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?

Gives explicit routing: this is the entry point per site, and 'use the detail tools only for more depth' tells the agent when to escalate. It stops short of naming which sibling covers which depth (e.g. get_ai_visibility for engine-level detail), so the agent still has to map depth requests to specific tools.

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