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

Annotations already declare this as read-only (readOnlyHint: true) and closed-world (openWorldHint: false). The description adds that it returns specific details like live URL, plan, file locations, etc., which is useful. However, it doesn't discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, or any behavioral traits beyond what the annotations provide.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It's appropriately sized and every word contributes, though it could be slightly more concise by omitting some listed details.

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 the presence of an output schema (which documents return values), the description is largely complete for a simple read-only tool. It could mention prerequisites (like needing a site identifier from list_sites) or usage context, but the essential information is present.

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 fully documents the 'site' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information. The baseline for full coverage with no additional info is 3.

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 a specific verb+resource: retrieving details for one website, and lists the specific fields returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like check_site, which could also provide site information, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention check_site, describe_database, or any other sibling. The only implied usage is that it's for getting website details.

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