Read Site information

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the required scope (meta:read) and the timezone interpretation for scheduling. The "Read only. Nothing is changed" line reinforces the readOnlyHint but is somewhat redundant; still, the additional scope and timezone details merit credit.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value except "Read only. Nothing is changed," which repeats annotations. Overall it's well-structured but could be slightly tighter.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the returned fields, explains the context (site the key belongs to, timezone interpretation), and states the security requirement. No significant gaps remain.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% covered). The description appropriately focuses on the returned data and context, which is sufficient. No parameter details are needed.

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 explicitly states "Read Site information" and enumerates the specific fields returned (display name, domain, locale, timezone), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools by focusing on public site-level metadata.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to retrieve public site info, and specifically notes that scheduling times are interpreted against the site's timezone. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the scope is unique among siblings, so usage is well implied.

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