get_site_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by flagging an 'inline screenshot' (i.e., the response can be payload-heavy) and offering a token-saving compact mode — meaningful disclosure about response cost. It stops short of stating size limits or failure behavior for unknown slugs.

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 compact sentences, verb and resource front-loaded, with the field inventory before the compact caveat. Dense but no filler; the only slight redundancy is restating the compact behavior already in the schema.

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 by enumerating the field groups, plus a note on the compact variant. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only error/empty-result behavior for an invalid or missing slug is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%: slug documents its pattern and even points to search_sites as the source, and compact spells out exactly what degrades to counts. The description repeats 'compact=true returns a token-diet summary' rather than adding new meaning, so it matches the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 ('Get'), a scoped resource ('the design DNA of one Awwwards site'), and enumerates exactly what comes back: palette, technologies, elements, awards, description, screenshot. An agent can distinguish this from search_sites (discovery) and compare_sites (multi-site) without opening any 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?

The 'compact=true returns a token-diet summary' clause gives a concrete usage signal for the lightweight path, and the singular 'one site' implies this is the single-site detail lookup rather than a search. However it never explicitly says when to reach for this instead of search_sites, compare_sites, or get_site_elements, leaving the sibling routing to inference.

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