Website chat insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns a summary of activity and surfaces only unanswered questions, framing results as gap indicators. This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second explains the practical value. Nothing duplicates the schema or annotations.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional documented parameter and an output schema, the description provides the purpose, the distinguishing data (unanswered questions), and the follow-up action (identifying knowledge gaps). An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it 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?

The schema description fully covers the only parameter ('Window in days, 1-90. Defaults to 7.'), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline 3 applies since schema coverage is 100% and no parameter-specific information is missing.

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 states a specific action ('Summarise'), a clear resource ('recent website assistant activity'), and a distinctive focus ('visitor questions it could not answer'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_knowledge_documents or answer_visitor_question.

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 second sentence ('Unanswered questions identify gaps suitable for new knowledge entries') implies the intended use case: finding knowledge gaps before adding new entries. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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