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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds little beyond that: it does not mention error behavior for unknown slugs, data freshness, or whether the response includes nullable fields. This is acceptable for a simple read-only tool but provides no extra behavioral context.

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 immediately conveys the resource scope and the expected payload fields. There is no redundant wording, repetition of the tool name, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly: it states the scope, the input source in the schema, and the fields the agent should expect in the response. No output schema exists, so explicitly naming live URL, draft URL, and status fills that gap well.

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 covers the sole parameter completely, including its provenance from list_sites, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. At 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no additional parameter context.

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 that the tool returns details for exactly one site, specifying the resource and the fields returned (live URL, draft URL, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sites, which handle multiple sites, and from get_build_status and get_analytics, which focus on different concerns.

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 gives implicit usage context: it is for fetching one site's details after obtaining a slug via list_sites, as reinforced by the schema's parameter description. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as get_build_status or list_sites, leaving some selection burden on the agent.

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