traffic_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states only that the tool compares data, but does not clarify whether it is read-only, what permissions are required, what the output format is, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word contributes meaning 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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the output format, how the comparison is performed, or what 'diagnose' entails in terms of results, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds context that the tool compares GSC clicks and GA4 organic sessions, giving semantic meaning to parameters like gscSiteUrl and ga4PropertyId, beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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's purpose: diagnosing tracking issues by comparing GSC clicks and GA4 organic sessions. The verb 'diagnose' and specific resource 'tracking issues' differentiate it from sibling tools like analytics_anomalies or general diagnostics.

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 implies usage for tracking discrepancy investigation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as analytics_anomalies, seo_recommendations, or diagnostics. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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