webmaster_get_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes one extra behavioral note – "missing metrics remain missing," i.e. absent data is not imputed or backfilled – which is useful but thin. No mention of freshness, scoping to the authenticated user, or rate behavior.

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?

A single short sentence with the read action front-loaded and no filler. It is economical, though the trailing clause about missing metrics reads more like an implementation disclaimer than agent-facing guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the annotations carry the safety semantics. What remains missing is the scope of the summary and its relationship to the other webmaster read tools, leaving an agent with only a minimal basis for selecting it.

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% and the description never mentions the single required host_id parameter, so an agent gets no clarification of what identifier form is expected or whether it must be a verified host. With one undocumented parameter, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 verb plus resource ("Read indexing and site summary"), so the general purpose is legible, but "summary" is vague about which metrics are aggregated and it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like webmaster_get_host, webmaster_get_diagnostics, or webmaster_get_indexing_history. An agent cannot tell from the text alone when this is the right read.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many webmaster_* readers in the sibling list. The agent must infer the intended scenario from the tool name only.

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