webmaster_get_summary

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries responsibility for behavioral context. It discloses a notable behavior: missing metrics remain missing, which sets expectations about response completeness. However, it does not address permissions, data availability, or any other operational traits beyond that one quirk.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The 'missing metrics remain missing' note is compact and adds meaningful behavioral information without bloating the text.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the operation and a notable response trait. It falls short of complete because it offers no usage context or parameter explanation, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema keep the gap from being severe.

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 only parameter, host_id, is left entirely to the schema's minimal 'string' type. The description does not explain how host_id relates to the summary or what format/identifier is expected, and with 0% schema description coverage there is no compensatory semantic detail.

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 clear verb ('Read') and resource ('indexing and site summary'), which conveys the core action. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for differentiation, but 'summary' reasonably distinguishes it from history- and diagnostics-focused siblings.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as webmaster_get_indexing_history or webmaster_get_host. The description only establishes a read context, leaving the agent to infer appropriate selection.

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