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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output composition and does not mention read-only nature, authorization needs, rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. For a query tool, more transparency is expected.

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 a single sentence of 26 words, clearly and efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and output. No redundant information.

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 high parameter count and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main output but lacks details on output format, data aggregation, or constraints (e.g., maximum results). It is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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% with descriptions for all 10 parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves JavaScript error volume grouped by source (third-party or first-party) for a domain, and specifies the included metrics: share, distinct issues, and affected page views. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like get_error_issues and get_domain_performance_overview by focusing on vendor grouping.

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 description implies usage when error volume by source is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of typical use cases. With many sibling tools, this lack of explicit guidelines is a gap.

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