multi_site_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond basic mechanics by mandating strict analysis rules: base conclusions only on returned data, report exact numbers, avoid speculation, and acknowledge insufficient data. It also prescribes rich interactive presentation. Missing are operational details like rate limits or error behavior, but the description is strong on analytical behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by clearly labeled IMPORTANT and PRESENTATION sections. The presentation section is lengthy but serves a valuable role in guiding agent output. Every sentence provides actionable guidance, though it could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must define expected results; it does by listing metrics, period comparison, health status, and detailed presentation requirements. It also tells the agent how to handle incomplete data. Operational edge cases are omitted, but for a reporting-oriented tool the description is fairly 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (days default, site_urls fallback). The description adds context like 'period comparison' but does not elaborate on syntax, format, or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states a specific purpose: 'Health check across multiple GSC properties in one view' with concrete metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, position). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like traffic_drops and content_gaps by focusing on a multi-property dashboard overview rather than a single issue or property.

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 when to use it: for an agency-style multi-property health check with period comparison, which differentiates it from more specialized sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full 5.

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