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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: monetary fields are bare numbers carrying no currency, and currency_code must come from get_organization_settings. That prevents a real misinterpretation, though it does not cover error behavior for a bad ID.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the currency caveat follows immediately with the remediation tool named inline.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-value burden and partially meets it by naming address and description fields plus the numeric-amount convention. It stops short of enumerating the full payload or stating behavior for an unknown/invalid site ID, which leaves a modest gap.

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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents 'id' as a Site ID (uuid). The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond the word 'specific' and rests on the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 verb and resource (get detailed information about a specific site) and names the kind of content returned (address, description). It distinguishes itself from list_sites by scoping to 'a specific site', but it never explicitly names that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explained: pass an ID to retrieve one site instead of enumerating. The only explicit directive is a downstream one (fetch currency_code from get_organization_settings before stating amounts), which is helpful but is not guidance on when to choose get_site over list_sites or update_site.

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