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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what statistics are returned (indexed, pending, failed counts) and does not contradict any annotation. Minor details like data freshness or pagination are absent but not critical for a simple read-only stats tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then gives concrete details about the returned metrics. Every word adds value with no filler or redundancy.

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 a single simple parameter, no output schema, and safety annotations, the description provides enough context for calling and interpreting the result. It could be more explicit about the response format, but the enumeration of indexed/pending/failed counts is sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

The schema has one required website_id with no description (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'for the website' hints at the parameter's role but does not explicitly map website_id to the target website. Since the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description offers partial context, a mid-range score 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 states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('auto-indexing stats for the website'), and enumerates the exact data categories (indexed, pending, failed URLs). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_website_stats or request_indexing.

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 the usage context by naming 'auto-indexing stats', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_website_stats or request_indexing. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so only implied usage is present.

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