Get HitKeep Search Console Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds context by specifying exactly what is read (mapping and sync status). However, it does not go beyond that—no mention of latency, data freshness, or authorization needs. Given the annotations cover the key traits, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 with no fluff. It states the action and the subject efficiently. Every word contributes to clarity, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description is adequately complete. The presence of an output schema presumably details the return structure, and the description explains what the tool returns (status). It could elaborate on what 'sync status' entails (e.g., last synced time, errors), but given the output schema exists, this is likely covered. Overall, it meets the needs for this simple tool.

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 description for site_id is complete ('HitKeep site UUID.'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra parameter insight.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and clearly defines the resource: 'Google Search Console mapping and sync status for one HitKeep site.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hitkeep_get_search_console (which likely fetches actual console data) and hitkeep_get_site_overview, focusing on the status of mapping/sync rather than data itself.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or contrast with sibling tools. While the tool name is descriptive, the description lacks the 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance needed for optimal selection.

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