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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description still adds permission scope (settings:read), a data-redaction guarantee (Slack URL is masked and never returned), and sentinel value semantics (site_locale null = inherited from schema). These are non-obvious behavioral facts an agent could not get from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then dense field enumeration with no filler; every clause carries information. It is one long nested-parenthetical sentence, which is slightly harder to scan than a short list would be.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so field by field, plus auth scope and redaction behavior. Nothing material is missing for a one-parameter read 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 coverage is 100% and the single `site` parameter is already documented as a Site ID drawn from list_sites, so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 ("Read the site's settings") and immediately enumerates the concrete fields returned (staff_mail, auto-reply text, GTM, form_turnstile, site_locale). It explicitly rules out mutation, which separates it cleanly from the sibling update_settings.

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 closing clause "Changing them is not possible with this tool" makes the read-only context clear and implicitly routes writes to update_settings, though it never names that sibling outright. An agent gets clear situational context but must infer the exact alternative tool.

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