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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (metadata fields) and implies a read-only operation. However, it omits error behavior (e.g., what happens if the site is not found) and does not explicitly state that no changes are made, which would be useful given the absence of readOnlyHint.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that leads with the action and immediately lists the returned data. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields and resource state. It lacks details on error handling and does not explicitly confirm the operation is non-mutating, but these are minor gaps for a metadata getter. Overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema's generic 'Идентификатор сайта' (site identifier) by specifying the site must be previously published and enumerating the metadata tied to that identifier. This helps the agent understand the required state of the resource.

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 uses the specific verb 'Возвращает метаданные' (returns metadata) with a clear resource: previously published site. It enumerates the exact metadata fields, making the tool's function unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (delete, publish, update) as the read-only metadata retrieval operation.

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 clarifies the tool operates on 'ранее опубликованного сайта' (previously published site), implying it should be used after publishing and not for unpublished resources. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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