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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the output notation ('name*' required, ':a|b' allowed values, '=x' default) and that a full call returns a ready-to-use clify_run invocation.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the notation legend is front-loaded and the second sentence covers the argument's effect. The opening legend is cryptic on first read but every clause carries information.

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 responsibly explains the return notation and the two modes (bare command list vs. detailed single-command lookup). Minor gaps remain around site-name resolution and error behavior, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both params are self-described, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining what the 'command' argument returns (full param docs, default fields, a ready clify_run call), which the schema's terse 'one command name for full details' does not convey.

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 identifies the resource (a site's commands and their params) and the title pairs it with 'Commands and params of a site'. The verb is implicit (a discovery/listing operation) rather than stated, but it is clearly distinct from clify_run (executes) and clify_sites (lists sites).

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?

'Pass command for full param docs, default fields and a ready clify_run call' tells the agent exactly what the optional argument unlocks and points at the downstream tool it feeds. It does not state when to prefer this over calling clify_run directly, but the workflow context is clear rather than merely implied.

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