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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by naming the specific fields returned, but it does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or whether all fields are always returned.

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, dense sentence fragment that efficiently enumerates the returned information. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the most important status fields, though the lack of a verb makes it slightly less structured.

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 simple read-only tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete because it lists the returned fields. It only lacks explicit usage guidance and error behavior, which are minor gaps for this straightforward status tool.

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 100%, so both the site and token parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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 identifies the resource as a single site and enumerates the status/details it returns (state, address, logins, claim link, clocks). It does not include an explicit verb or distinguish itself from siblings such as list_sites, but the singular 'of a site' and detailed fields make the intent clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_sites or create_site. The schema mentions that the site name comes from create_site or list_sites, but the description itself provides no usage context or alternatives.

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