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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, non-destructive, closed-world call, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the returned schema must be edited and its schema_version threaded into update_schema, which signals an optimistic-concurrency contract the annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying what happens on a stale or mismatched version, so a 4 rather than 5.

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, zero filler, with the mandatory workflow constraint front-loaded immediately after the what-it-does clause. Every sentence carries new information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must say what is returned — and it does: the field definitions for forms and CMS plus schema_version. It also supplies the downstream step needed to act on that return value, leaving nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

Only one parameter (site), and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage, including that the ID comes from list_sites. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the site's schema") and parenthetically defines what "schema" means here — field definitions for forms and CMS — which disambiguates it from sibling concepts like entries or settings. It also names the second returned value, schema_version, so the agent knows exactly what comes back.

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 prescriptive rule ("Always call this before changing the schema") and names the alternative it pairs with (update_schema), including the read-modify-write sequence to follow. There is no ambiguity about when to reach for this tool versus update_schema.

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