query_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool computes period-over-period deltas, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether it's read-only, any side effects, or response format expectations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word is meaningful, with no 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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It doesn't hint at the return structure or clarify which siblings to prefer in specific scenarios. However, for a relatively straightforward aggregation tool, it is minimally adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the input schema already provides (e.g., filter, period, metrics). It does not compensate with extra context for any parameters.

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 aggregates stats for a site with period-over-period deltas, answering 'How is this site doing?'. The verb 'aggregate' and resource 'stats for a site' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like query_breakdown (breakdown by dimension) or query_timeseries (raw time series).

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 for high-level site performance overview, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_timeseries or query_pages. No when-not or alternatives are mentioned.

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