property_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-dependency behavior are covered. The description adds useful scope detail (which subsystems are aggregated, that metrics are compared to a previous period), but says nothing about partial failures, missing data, or how many upstream calls are made per invocation.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the key framing ('one-call overview') and then lists the signal groups. No filler, though a fragment rather than a sentence and a comma-list that could be segmented for faster scanning.

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 composite read-only tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the major result sections, which is the essential information an agent needs to decide to call it. It stops short of indicating response shape or aggregation granularity, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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% and the schema itself explains the PT day window, the 490-day cap, the default of 28, and the precedence of start_date over days, plus accepted site formats. The description's 'vs previous period' phrase is consistent with those semantics, so no additional parameter explanation is needed for correct invocation.

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 names a specific composite resource ('one-call overview') and enumerates the contents: web + Discover performance vs previous period, sitemaps health, local indexing summary, robots.txt status. This clearly separates it from single-purpose siblings like sitemaps or robots_txt_check, though it never names the nearest alternative (performance_overview, multi_site_dashboard) explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'one-call overview' suggests a first-pass/triage use, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as performance_overview or compare_periods. An agent must infer the slot from the enumerated contents.

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