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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: propsPatch replaces string props whole, so the returned JSON is the current value to merge into. This is useful beyond the annotations, though it omits other traits like error handling or return structure.

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, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence is slightly cryptic but earns its place by conveying merge semantics; no filler text.

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?

Given a simple read tool with no output schema, the description could say more about what the raw JSON contains or clarify the relationship to patch_site_node. It covers safety via annotations and adds merge context, but leaves some gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the node model.

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 id and nodeId are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one node's raw JSON.' This distinguishes it from siblings like list_site_nodes and patch_site_node, though it never explicitly names alternatives. The second sentence about propsPatch adds context but slightly muddles the core purpose.

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?

The description implies a usage scenario (getting the current value to merge into propsPatch), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_site_nodes, search_site_nodes, or get_block. The guidance is embedded rather than directive.

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