get_performance_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important nuance about domain properties covering all subdomains and suggests filtering by page for specific subdomains. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as data aggregation, freshness, or that the tool only returns an overview rather than raw analytics, which would be useful for setting 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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by an Args block. Every sentence provides valuable information, with no filler or redundancy. The structure makes it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the availability of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers parameter semantics and key usage nuances, and references list_properties for prerequisite understanding. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning when to prefer this over get_search_analytics, but overall it is adequate for effective usage.

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 descriptions are empty (0% coverage), so the description must fully compensate. It thoroughly explains site_url with examples and clarifies that domain properties cover all subdomains, which is critical for correct usage. It also clarifies that days is a look-back period with a default, adding meaning beyond the basic type and default provided in the schema.

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's function: 'Get a performance overview for a specific property.' This uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_search_analytics, though the term 'overview' implies a summarized view.

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 provides clear context for using the tool, referencing list_properties and explaining the difference between domain and page properties. It gives actionable guidance on how to use site_url effectively. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, falling short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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