get_site_health_summary

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that setting site_id to None returns summary for all sites, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or data freshness.

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?

Description is brief and uses a structured Args/Returns format. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more concise by removing the erroneous 'settings' line.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers purpose and parameter behavior. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over many similar sibling tools.

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?

Description explains site_id parameter meaning and default behavior, which adds value over the schema (0% coverage). However, it misleadingly includes 'settings: Application settings' in Args, which is not in the input schema, causing confusion.

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 'Get health summary for all sites or a specific site', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting optional site_id for individual site vs. all sites.

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 implies usage context (with or without site_id) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like get_site_details or get_cross_site_statistics.

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