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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context the annotations lack: it enumerates the returned fields (address, contact, customer, custom fields, tags), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 compact sentence front-loads the lookup modes and the payload, followed by the raw endpoint. No filler; every clause carries 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 usefully lists the fields a caller should expect, and annotations cover safety. It omits edge behavior such as not-found handling or identifier precedence, but that is a minor gap for a simple 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%, so the two parameters and the by-enum are already documented. The description still adds the 'exact name' qualifier, telling the agent that name matching is exact rather than fuzzy — a nuance the schema's generic 'name' enum value does not convey.

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 ('One site') plus the three accepted identifier modes, and names the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from synchroteam_list_sites and the other get_* siblings without needing to open the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the singular 'One site by id, myId or exact name', which signals single-record retrieval rather than enumeration. However, it never names list_sites as the bulk alternative or states when to prefer one identifier mode over another.

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