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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the return shape (sections with page count, file-exists flag, staged-change flag) and a staleness warning that indexing mirrors list_pages so a freshly imported/graduated site may still be indexing.

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?

Front-loads the resource ('Site shape:') and packs the returned fields densely but without filler. The single long enumeration sentence is information-rich though slightly heavy, and the usage and staleness notes are warranted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so component-by-component (sections, layout-missing status, redirects count, menus, collections). An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the response, though exact field names beyond `sections` are left to inference.

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 100%, so the schema already documents site, context, and guestToken thoroughly. The description adds nothing further about parameter meaning or syntax, leaving this at the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 resource — the site's overall shape (layouts, shared sections, redirects, menus, collections) — with a clear verb of retrieval. It distinguishes itself from list_pages ('without listing every page'), but does not differentiate from other site-overview siblings like get_site_manifest or get_structure_result.

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?

Provides concrete triggering scenarios in the user's own words ('is my layout missing', 'which shared sections exist and where', 'where does this menu show'), which give an agent strong cues for when to reach for it. It implies a when-not (do not use to enumerate pages) but never names the alternative tool explicitly.

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