multi_site_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does a solid job. It explains the nuanced behavior of the position metric (impression-weighted average, sparse deep-position data, directional rather than absolute) and warns against speculation beyond returned data. It stops short of covering data freshness or API limits, but the core interpretive caveat is well handled.

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 organized into clear sections—purpose, IMPORTANT, PRESENTATION, POSITION—with the core purpose front-loaded. While the PRESENTATION block is detailed, it earns its place given no output schema exists; the only minor fluff is 'Agency essential.'

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?

In the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the displayed metrics, period comparison, health status, position caveats, and presentation requirements. It leaves minor gaps around how 'health status' and 'period comparison' are precisely computed, but overall it gives an agent enough to call and interpret the tool 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description alludes to 'period comparison' but doesn't map days or site_urls to behavior beyond what the schema states, so it adds no meaningful parameter-level semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Health check across multiple GSC properties in one view." It lists the exact metrics shown (clicks, impressions, CTR, position) and the distinguishing feature of multi-site aggregation, which clearly sets it apart from single-property siblings like site_snapshot or inspect_url.

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 a use case—multi-site health checks for agencies—but never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no reference to sibling tools or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose statement.

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