Get Summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid project ID), or if the returned data is cached. The description assumes read-only but is not explicit.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each adding value: it identifies the tool's domain and prerequisite, and states its primary function. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'summary statistics' entail (e.g., metrics, time range), which leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's utility. Additional behavioral context is needed for a complete understanding.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema already describes site_id as 'Unique website ID'. The description adds no further meaning beyond restating that a project ID is required, which is already implied by the parameter name.

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 states it retrieves summary statistics for a project, specifying it's a 'Project Tool' and requires a project ID. However, it does not distinguish itself from other PROJECT_get* siblings beyond the 'summary' focus.

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 mentions the prerequisite of a project ID but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other project-related tools like getAdsStats or getKeywordStats. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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