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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond that: issues are returned one row per rule rather than per page, and each issue carries a locator 'where we have one' — a useful caveat about output granularity and possible nulls.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with the core purpose before the enumeration, and every clause earns its place by naming a distinct output component. It is dense and slightly run-on, but not padded.

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 properly carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by enumerating scores, counts, grouped issues, opportunities, and delta. What is missing is any guidance on refreshing/recency or relationship to the sibling health tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 parameters (site_id and the concise/detailed detail enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the 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?

States a clear verb+resource (a consolidated health picture for a site) and enumerates exactly what it contains — SEO/AEO/GEO scores with trend, triage counts, rule-grouped issues, ranked opportunities, and new-vs-fixed delta. This rich content list lets an agent infer what it is, but it never names overlapping siblings such as technical_health, seo_insights, or site_overview, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase 'One consolidated health picture' implies this is the aggregate/summary entry point, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named among the many overlapping siblings (technical_health, get_site_insights, get_analysis). Usage is only implied.

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