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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature. The description adds valuable context by enumerating what the response includes: pages/routes, CMS collections, live URL, and count of unpublished edits. It does not cover pagination, error behavior, or permission requirements, but it adds more than the annotation alone provides.

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, front-loaded sentence fragment that immediately states the resource and its returned components. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 helpfully enumerates the main return fields and the read-only annotation covers the safety profile. The siteId parameter is fully documented in the schema. It lacks guidance on error cases or response format, but it is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 the single parameter siteId is documented as 'From list_sites' in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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states that this tool retrieves details of one project, listing pages/routes, CMS collections, live URL, and pending unpublished edits. It distinguishes the resource from list-based siblings by specifying 'one project', though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from get_site_context or list_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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs detailed information about a single site, and the siteId schema note says 'From list_sites'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools.

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