ztna_site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's "[READ]" tag merely repeats that. Beyond the safety flag, it adds nothing: no note on whether a missing site returns an error or empty result, no permission requirements, and no return-shape context despite there being 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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no structure to speak of beyond the bracketed tag.

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 single-record read this could be adequate, but with an undocumented required parameter and no output schema, the agent has no information about the identifier or the returned record. The definition omits what an agent needs to call it correctly beyond the tool name.

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?

There is one parameter (site_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no meaning and the description must compensate. It says nothing about what a site_id is, its format, or where to obtain it (e.g., from ztna_sites), leaving the sole required parameter undocumented in both places.

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?

"Read one site" gives a verb and a resource, and the singular "one" implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling ztna_sites. However, the phrasing largely restates the tool name (ztna_site) and never explicitly names the alternative, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite note, and no mention of ztna_sites or ztna_site_status as alternatives. The only signal is the word "one," which implies a single-record lookup, leaving the agent to infer the routing decision.

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