webmaster_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the returned data fields; it does not mention authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or other operational traits. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the key metrics with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a summary tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the summary contents (ИКС, indexed pages, excluded pages, active diagnostic problems). It could be more complete by specifying whether the summary covers all sites or requires selection, but it is largely sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the empty schema is appropriately handled.

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 the resource and lists the specific metrics returned (ИКС, pages in search, excluded, diagnostic problems), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like webmaster_queries or webmaster_indexing, but the content distinguishes it from those focused tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as webmaster_queries, webmaster_indexing, or other summary tools. The description states what it does but not the conditions or context for selecting it.

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