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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the specific details returned, which goes beyond the annotation. It does not mention any other behaviors (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits), but the output schema likely covers return structure. Given the annotation covers safety, a 4 is appropriate.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Details for one website') and then lists the specific data points. Every word adds value, and there is no filler. It is concise and efficiently structured.

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 a single required parameter fully described in the schema, an output schema present, and read-only annotations, the description covers all necessary context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. There are no hidden complexities or missing prerequisites. The description is complete.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the 'site' parameter, including an example format. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns details for one website, enumerating specific attributes (live URL, plan, file locations, database config location for PHP plans, SSL and nameserver status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sites (which lists sites) and check_site (which likely checks status). The verb 'get' and resource are explicit.

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 a single website ('Details for one website') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_sites or check_site. No exclusions or alternative guidance are given, so the agent must infer from context. This is adequate but not explicit.

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