get_performance_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, any rate limits, potential errors, or side effects. Although the name implies a read operation, without explicit disclosure the agent lacks important behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description adequately covers the input parameters with usage context, especially site_url. Since an output schema exists, the lack of output explanation is acceptable. However, it does not address behavioral traits (e.g., read-only) or differentiate from sibling analytics tools, leaving minor gaps in overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It adds significant value: site_url is explained with example formats and a note on domain properties and subdomain analysis; days is explained with default and meaning ('look back'). Both parameters are fully described 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 states the action ('Get a performance overview') and the resource ('for a specific property'). The verb and resource are specific. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_search_analytics, the name and context imply a high-level summary. However, lack of explicit differentiation prevents a 5.

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 practical guidance on using the site_url parameter (e.g., format, domain vs subdomain) and explains the days parameter. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_search_analytics or get_advanced_search_analytics. The guidance is helpful but insufficient for tool selection.

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