autotask_get_company_site_configuration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and mentions the purpose of discovering fields, but doesn't specify whether it returns single or multiple records, pagination behavior, error conditions, or authentication requirements. It adds some context but leaves behavioral details incomplete.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first explains what the tool does, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.

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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides good context about what site configurations are and when to use the tool. However, it doesn't describe the return format or what happens when no configuration exists. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, it could be more complete about behavioral expectations.

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% with one parameter (companyId) fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get'), resource ('site configuration record(s) for a company in Autotask'), and purpose ('contain tenant-defined fields used to track per-company configuration data'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning autotask_update_company_site_configuration as a related but different operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this first to discover which fields are available before calling autotask_update_company_site_configuration.' This clearly establishes a workflow sequence and distinguishes it from the update operation.

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