Site Overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully disclosed and the bar is lower. The description adds some value by naming the exact metrics returned, but it does not disclose date-default behavior when startDate/endDate are omitted, how pastMinutesStart/pastMinutesEnd interact with date ranges, or any aggregation semantics. Moderate additional context over annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: verb and resource are front-loaded, the metric list is compact but complete, and the capability statement ('Supports date range and filters') is a single closing clause. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 1 required parameter, 100% schema coverage, and full safety annotations, the essentials are covered, and the metric enumeration meaningfully compensates for the absent output schema. The only notable gap is sibling-routing guidance, which is already penalized under usage_guidelines; an agent can otherwise call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Supports date range and filters' only echoes what the schema already documents in richer detail (filter comparison types, example array, the user_id dual-check note, IANA timezone guidance). No parameter meaning is added 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregated overview metrics for a site') and concretely enumerates the six metrics returned (sessions, pageviews, unique users, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings implicitly — 'aggregated' contrasts with get_overview_timeseries and the multi-metric list contrasts with get_metric — but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of the 5-level bar.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many overlapping siblings: get_overview_timeseries, get_metric, get_site_details, and get_retention all sit nearby. There is no when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives; an agent must infer routing solely from the word 'aggregated', which is weak signal.

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