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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists the data returned but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it's expensive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. No behavioral traits beyond content are provided.

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 efficiently lists all key components without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a summary tool.

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 complexity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It specifies the contents but lacks details on return format (e.g., structure, pagination) and behavioral context such as read-only safety or potential limitations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and none are present.

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 the tool provides headline numbers across the dataset, including verdict mix, blocking sites, vendors, and categories. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_sites or check_site by being an aggregate summary, though it lacks a specific verb and doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: use this for aggregate statistics rather than individual site checks. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_sites or search_sites, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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