get_cross_site_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth requirements, no scope of aggregation (which sites are included?), no rate limits, no indication of cost or latency. The "Returns" line merely restates the opening sentence and is redundant with the output schema.

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 text is short, but the Args/Returns scaffolding is boilerplate that adds no information: "Returns: Cross-site statistics" duplicates the first sentence verbatim in meaning. Front-loading is fine, but the body does not earn 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 cross-site analytics tool with no annotations, the description should at minimum explain what is aggregated, which sites are covered, and how the controller argument affects scope. Instead it supplies a misnamed argument and a circular return statement. The output schema covers the shape of the response, so the missing behavioral context is the real deficiency.

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 description documents an argument named "settings," but the schema's only parameter is "controller" — the description actively misnames and mischaracterizes the parameter. Although schema coverage is 100% (which would normally justify a baseline of 3), the description adds incorrect information rather than reinforcement, and the useful default-resolution behavior described in the schema is not echoed or clarified.

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 specific verb and resource ("Get aggregate statistics across multiple sites"), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it offers no differentiation from nearby siblings such as compare_site_performance, get_site_health_summary, or get_site_inventory, all of which also return cross-site or aggregate data. An agent cannot tell from this line why it should pick this tool over those.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like compare_site_performance and get_site_health_summary in the same family, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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