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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the kind of details returned (live URL, storage size, status), which is useful, but it doesn't disclose error behavior or what happens for invalid/missing site IDs. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key returned fields. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant restatement of the schema.

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 1-parameter getter with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is adequate: it states what is retrieved and the parameter is fully documented in the schema. It stops short of explicit usage routing, but nothing essential is missing.

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 site_id parameter already has a description explaining its source (list_sites/create_site). The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('details of a single site'), and enumerates included fields (live URL, storage size, current status). It is distinct from list_sites, which retrieves multiple sites, and from mutation siblings like update_site/delete_site.

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 intended use is implied by 'single site': call when you need details for one site identified by site_id, not a listing. However, the description doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over list_sites/search or mention any exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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