get_site_report

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: a slug-sourced report needs no API key, while monitoring history is unavailable without a Causabi login. It stops short of stating read-only semantics, rate limits, or latency, but the auth and data-availability caveats are genuinely useful.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then usage triggers, then parameter branching, which is the right order for an agent scanning it. It is somewhat dense in the final sentence, but every clause (API key, login requirement) carries decision-relevant information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must supply both purpose and behavior, and it does so adequately for a two-parameter read tool: it covers the two call modes, their prerequisites, and the resulting data limitations. Minor gaps remain around read-only semantics and response shape, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: the slug path yields the full mention-rate report while domain-only yields a score-only summary, and it explains where a slug comes from (a causabi.com/report/<slug> link) and that it bypasses the API key.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a client-ready report for a site') and enumerates the two payloads it returns: GEO score breakdown and AI mention-rate results across named engines. It also implicitly separates itself from sibling analyze_geo_score by framing the output as a client-deliverable rather than a raw score.

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?

Explicit triggers are given in the user's own words ('a report on this site', 'how is this client doing', 'hand to a client'), plus a clear branch rule: pass report_slug for the full report, pass only domain for a score-only summary. Nothing about when to reach for this tool is left to inference.

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