rybbit_get_site_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It reveals that the tool 'fans out to ~7 API requests internally,' which is a significant performance/cost behavior, and mentions 'current live visitor count' indicating real-time data. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, offering useful context about how the tool operates.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a list of included data and a behavioral note about internal fan-out. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description effectively communicates the return contents by listing the metrics and breakdowns. It does not describe error cases or how date ranges interact with the live visitor count, but given the full schema coverage and rich parameter descriptions, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., limit, date ranges, filters). It does not clarify how parameters interact with the digest components, but the schema is fully self-descriptive.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Get a one-call analytics digest') and enumerates the exact components (overview metrics, top pages, referrers, countries, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rybbit_get_overview or rybbit_get_live_visitors. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'prefer this over calling each tool separately,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It implies that if you need a comprehensive aggregate in one call, this is the right choice, while individual sibling tools are for specific slices. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when only a single metric is needed), which would make it fully explicit.

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