Site: Get_site

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no error behavior for an invalid or missing id, no note on what fields come back, no auth or scoping constraints. With annotations doing the work, this is a bare restatement.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, cardinality and lookup key are all in the opening clause. Nothing to trim.

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 trivial single-resource read with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, almost nothing more is needed. The only missing piece is what happens on a nonexistent id (error vs empty), which is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents the accepted types (string|number) and even an example source. The description contributes no additional meaning about the identifier format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a single Brivo site') and scopes it to lookup by id, which separates it from the many Site: List_* siblings. It does not distinguish itself from Get_site_proximity, the one sibling whose name is closest, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use this when you have a siteId and need one site,' and the schema note 'e.g. from Site: List_sites' hints at provenance. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to alternatives such as Get_site_proximity for location data.

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