Site Search

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only analytics operation. The description adds some context about what the tool reports but does not disclose behavioral traits like response shape or additional side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and enumerates the three report types without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

With strong annotations, a complete parameter schema including useful hints (e.g., call matomo_list_sites for unknown site_id), and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It could go further in describing the return structure, but overall is quite complete.

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?

All parameters have 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the report parameter's enum values (keywords, no_result_keywords, categories) in a way not present in the schema's terse 'Which site-search report to fetch' description.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Internal site-search analytics' followed by the three report output types (searched terms, no-result searches, search categories). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like matomo_pages or matomo_referrers, which cover different analytics areas.

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 use case: site-search analytics for understanding visitor search behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or reference any sibling tools. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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