compare_site_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'compare', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, required permissions, how invalid site names are handled, or whether results are live or cached. The description lacks transparency about potential edge cases or operational nuances.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanation earns its place. Every word contributes to understanding the 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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter meaning. However, it lacks usage context, any note about minimum number of sites, or behavior on missing/invalid sites. It is minimally complete but could be more helpful.

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 only defines 'sites' as an array of strings with no description. The description adds meaning by explaining the parameter as 'list of site names or IDs to compare', clarifying the acceptable values and their purpose. This compensates well for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb 'compare' with a resource 'health and performance metrics across multiple sites' and the manner 'side-by-side'. This makes the purpose clear and distinct from single-site tools, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_site_health_summary or list_all_sites_aggregated. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned; the usage scenario is only implied by the purpose.

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