Get site info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts. Most notably, it discloses that lookups with 'site' require no API key and reach outside the caller's account, which is the key operational nuance for an open-world read.

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 returned fields, followed by the two-mode behavior, then compact examples, then a pointer to the sibling tool. Every line carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers auth requirements, both calling modes, and the alternative tool for enumeration. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented, but the description adds the semantic distinction that matters most: omitted 'site' means the authenticated user's own site while a supplied domain means a third-party public site. The examples reinforce the format expected (a bare domain). 'response_format' is left to the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Get a Nekoweb site's") and enumerates the exact fields returned: title, domain, views, followers, update count, and creation/update dates. It also clearly separates the two modes (own site vs. any public site), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like nekoweb_list_sites.

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?

It states explicitly when to omit 'site' (returns the configured key's site) and when to pass it (any public Nekoweb site, no API key needed), then reinforces this with two concrete input examples. It also names the alternative tool, nekoweb_list_sites, for enumerating all sites on an account.

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