get_eeat_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the disclosure burden, and it does add real signal: zero credit cost and read-only behavior. It omits scope details such as the analysis window, whether 'trend' needs historical data, and any auth requirements.

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?

Two dense sentences, contents listed first and cost/safety last. Nothing is padded and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The output schema covers the return shape, so results needn't be explained, and credit/read-only facts are present. However, for a tool whose sole required argument is undocumented, the definition leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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 required project_id has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no hint about what a project_id is or where to obtain one. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific resource (E-E-A-T summary) and enumerates its contents: scores, trend, open todos, competitor comparison. An agent can tell what it returns, though it does not distinguish itself from the nearby get_scorecard sibling.

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?

No indication of when to reach for this summary versus get_scorecard, get_analytics_insights, or the other reporting tools. The only usage-adjacent text is the cost note 'Credits: 0, read-only', which is not selection guidance.

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