summarize_all_sites

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the default date range (last_7_days) and formatting instructions (lead with fleet_totals, then needs_attention, then top_movers; paraphrase numbers). No contradictions.

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 (4-5 sentences) and well-structured: it starts with the primary use case, then enumerates output components, and ends with formatting instructions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the output structure (fleet totals, breakdown, needs attention, top movers, AI leaders) and formatting. It could be more complete by clarifying that the output schema defines precise fields, but overall it covers the needed guidance.

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 single parameter 'date_range' is already fully described in the schema with enum values and default. The description repeats the default range but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool answers broad status questions like 'how is everything doing' and 'give me a status' across the workspace. It details what it returns (fleet totals, status breakdown, needs attention, top movers), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific sites or metrics.

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 explicitly says 'ANSWER FIRST for any... question', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool for broad overviews. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context of siblings implies alternatives for more specific queries.

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