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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the log is read at query time, only hits from the last 48 hours are reported, a no-hit result means 'nothing in this window' not 'never an error', older hits appear in the footer, and an unreadable log is explicitly flagged. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent needs.

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 core aggregation purpose in the first sentence, followed by the ideal use case. Subsequent sentences about the 48h window and unreadable-log behavior earn their place, though the passage is dense and could be slightly tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what the response contains (a prioritized main diagnosis, footer with older errors, explicit unreadable-log notice). Combined with the rich behavioral caveats, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

One parameter (domain) with 100% schema coverage and an example ('example.com'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 function: aggregating all relevant domain signals (live HTTP/SSL/storage/databases/PHP fatals + report-based security/DNS/CloudLinux/WordPress) into ONE prioritized main diagnosis. It explicitly contrasts with the pattern of calling many individual tools, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_website_report or get_security_status without opening a schema.

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 a concrete use case ('meine Seite ist kaputt/langsam, was ist los?') and explicitly says to use this instead of calling multiple tools individually. It also names the alternative (search_domain_error_log) for cases outside its scope (other message types or a custom search pattern).

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