get_site_report

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

Since there are no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of transparency. It effectively communicates the *type* of data retrieved (e.g., team-level, win rates per site), which is a crucial behavioral scope, though it lacks technical constraints like rate limits or auth requirements.

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 slightly dense but exceptionally well-structured for its goal. It front-loads the core function and metrics before moving to specific natural language use cases, ensuring high information density per sentence.

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 complexity of a multi-parameter reporting tool, the description is highly complete. It exhaustively lists the specific metrics provided (plant rate, post-plant win %, retake/hold win %), satisfying the agent's need to understand the tool's capacity.

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?

Although the schema provides comprehensive parameter documentation, the description clarifies the *analytical output* generated by those parameters. It defines the scope of the reporting (team-level site metrics) rather than just listing inputs, adding significant semantic value beyond 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 and specifically defines the tool's purpose: analyzing team-level site play metrics. It enumerates specific statistical outputs, distinguishing it clearly from individual player performance reports or general match history tools.

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 direct guidance on when to use the tool by offering concrete use cases like 'which site should we hit on Bind'. This helps the AI determine the intent based on user queries about tactical site performance.

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