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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not need to restate it. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the analysis payload is withheld by default unless include_analysis=true, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or freshness of the crawl/status data.

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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the resource and its returned fields, the second front-loads the gating condition and the alternative tool. Every clause earns its place.

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 the return-value burden and does it well by enumerating the record's fields and flagging the ~50 KB analysis payload. It is only slightly incomplete: the detail=concise/detailed trimming behavior is left entirely to the schema and would matter for how verbosely results come back.

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% and all three parameters (detail, site_id, include_analysis) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces include_analysis with routing context (use get_analysis instead), but never mentions the detail verbosity parameter whose trimming behavior materially changes the output.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("Get a site's record") and then enumerates the exact fields returned: domain, workspace, connection statuses, latest crawl, latest analysis id. This lets an agent separate it from siblings like get_site_stats, get_site_health, and list_sites without opening the schema, and it points at get_analysis as the source of the full analysis.

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?

It gives one explicit routing rule: the full latest analysis is intentionally omitted here, and get_analysis returns it on its own, so an agent knows when to pick the sibling instead. However, it never states when to prefer get_site over list_sites, site_overview, or get_site_insights, so coverage of alternatives is partial rather than complete.

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