stat_site_list_load

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the value is a monthly average across all sites, but says nothing about aggregation window precision, refresh cadence, or failures.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, so it loses a point only for thinness, not verbosity.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and no parameters need documenting. The remaining gap is the lack of sibling differentiation and any note on time range semantics, but the definition is largely sufficient for a zero-arg stats endpoint.

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?

Zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics to document; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies the tool takes no filtering input.

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?

States a clear resource and metric (average load) scoped to all sites over a month, which separates it from the per-site sibling stat_site_load. However, it does not name that sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus stat_site_load or stat_db_list_load/stat_db_load. The 'all sites' phrasing implies context, but the description never routes the agent or states prerequisites.

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