webmaster_manage_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered and 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description adds a useful discovery behavior (operation='catalog' lists all operations, marked local), but discloses nothing about dispatch errors, unknown-operation handling, or output shape.

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 dense sentence packs the dispatch model, the args shape, the discovery operation, and the read-only nature with no filler. Front-loaded around the operation-name mechanic.

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 explained, and the 'catalog' pointer mitigates the 0% schema coverage. Still, for a polymorphic dispatcher the description leaves the valid operation set and args shapes entirely to runtime discovery, which is thin for correct first-call invocation.

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 must compensate and does so only partially: it clarifies 'operation' is an operation name and 'args' holds path ids plus a query{...} object. It does not enumerate valid operation values (relegated to the catalog call) nor give arg formats.

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?

States a specific verb and domain: 'Webmaster management/report reads by operation name,' which tells the agent this is a polymorphic read dispatcher. It distinguishes itself from write-oriented siblings (prepare/apply/reconcile) via 'Read-only,' but the set of readable resources stays opaque until the agent calls operation='catalog'.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Read-only' and the pointer to operation='catalog' for discovering available operations, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs the many webmaster_get_* siblings. The agent must infer that this is a meta-read over documented operations rather than a direct lookup.

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