pressable_get_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose; it does not mention what 'details' include, what happens if the site is not found, required permissions, or whether the operation is a safe read. The word 'Get' implies read-only, but that is insufficient given the lack of annotations.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-id tool.

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 should clarify what 'details' means or the expected return shape, but it does not. It is adequate for invoking the tool (ID or name is clear) but lacks context about the response, which is a gap for a get operation in an API with many siblings.

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?

The input schema already documents the single parameter as 'The site ID or site name' with 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID or name' adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('details for a specific site') and the lookup mechanism ('by ID or name'). It is distinct from siblings like pressable_list_sites, which lists all sites, and other getters that target different entities.

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 phrase 'for a specific site' implies the tool is used when you need detail for one site rather than a list, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like pressable_list_sites.

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