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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description is consistent with it. The description adds real context beyond the annotation: it is a single round trip, it is the prerequisite for the edit tools, and it silently fails to apply to converted Framer sites. It does not, however, discuss latency/cost beyond "one round trip" or failure modes for a missing design document.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with content scope before usage routing and the exclusion clause. Every sentence carries distinct information — contents, when to call it, and when not to.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the payload contents. Combined with the routing to sibling tools and the design-document precondition, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it 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 description coverage is 67% and the schema already documents includeSeo (walks every page, default false) and includeComponents (default true). The description's enumeration of pages/components/breakpoints echoes what the schema says about the include flags rather than adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules, so the baseline of 3 for schema-driven parameters 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource scope ("Everything about a Studio site in one call") and then enumerates exactly what is returned: pages/routes/node counts, components/props/variants, breakpoints, metadata, broken routes. It also explicitly separates this tool from sibling names (get_site, get_page_outline) for converted Framer 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ("Start here before designing or editing") with a rationale (one round trip, supplies every id the edit tools need), plus an explicit when-not with named alternatives ("Only for sites with a design document; converted Framer sites use get_site and get_page_outline instead"). Nothing is left to inference.

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