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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states that the operation is a read, returns empty when no custom snippet exists, requires an API key with read scope, and documents possible error types. This is useful and accurate behavioral context beyond the minimal tool name.

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 well-organized with distinct sections for context, arguments, return values, and errors. It is longer than minimal, but every sentence adds useful behavioral or semantic detail. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first line, so an agent can quickly understand what the tool does.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: the domain parameter format, a sample return structure, the empty-result behavior, and the possible errors. The tool's role behind the reverse proxy is also explained well enough for an agent to decide when to use 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?

The input schema only defines domain_name as a required string, so the description adds crucial meaning: "Full domain name (e.g. "example.com")". This gives the agent the expected format and a concrete example. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description appropriately compensates for the parameter's otherwise bare schema entry.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Read the custom nginx config for a domain on the BorealHost host proxy." This clearly distinguishes the tool from the write-oriented sibling set_site_nginx_snippet and other domain-related utilities. It also establishes exactly what the tool operates on and what the output represents.

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 explains when this tool is relevant: when you need to inspect the custom nginx block applied by the BorealHost reverse proxy for a domain. It also notes that an empty result means no custom snippet has been set, which helps interpret outcomes. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as set_site_nginx_snippet for modifying the config, but the context is otherwise clear.

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