Site metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately conveys that the tool retrieves an organic profile (non-mutating read operation), but it provides no details about data freshness, response format, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The description does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Organic profile of a domain') and then provides a concise list of included metrics. It contains no redundant words or filler.

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?

Given the tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the return metrics (organic traffic, keywords, etc.). It is complete for its simplicity, though it could explicitly note that this represents current rather than historical data, especially given the existence of site-metrics-history.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions ('Domain or URL to analyze' and 'Optional two-letter country code'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'Optionally scoped to one country' slightly reinforces the country parameter, but adds no novel meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource ('domain') and the specific metrics returned ('organic traffic, ranking keywords, top-3 keywords, traffic value, and paid traffic'), which distinguishes it from siblings like organic-keywords or top-pages. The optional country scoping further differentiates it from site-metrics-by-country.

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 provides clear context about what metrics are returned, so an agent can infer when to use it for an organic profile. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over closely related siblings like site-metrics-history or site-metrics-by-country, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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