Statistiques home du site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that the statistics follow the GPSEM dashboard and that the call is a GET, which is useful but does not disclose deeper behavior such as auth needs or empty/error responses.

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 compact and the key information is front-loaded: what the stats cover, their dashboard alignment, and the endpoint. It slightly repeats the title with 'Statistiques home du site', but there is no meaningful bloat.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description names the main returned metrics and scopes the resource clearly. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though it could mention response format or authentication for full completeness.

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 describes siteId as 'ID site encodé (hashid)' with 100% coverage, so the parameter semantics are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is necessary here.

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 identifies the resource and specific metrics ('Pages publiées, planifiées, taux d'indexation') plus the GET endpoint, so an agent can tell it is a read-only stats tool for a site. It does not differentiate against sibling getters, which prevents a top score.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and metric list, and the 'aligné sur le dashboard GPSEM' note gives some context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related dashboard/history/stat tools.

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