Site: Get_site_proximity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what kind of data is returned (Bluetooth/WiFi mobile-pass proximity), but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or whether proximity data may be absent.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately identifies the resource and hints at the payload content. It could be slightly richer about what the proximity record contains, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (siteId) with 100% schema description coverage ('The Brivo site id.'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'for a single site' merely restates the cardinality without adding format or sourcing detail.

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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (proximity information) and scope (a single site), and clarifies the data type as Bluetooth/WiFi mobile-pass. The 'single site' scoping implicitly distinguishes it from the List_sites_proximity sibling, but it never names that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 single site' implies this is the per-site lookup as opposed to the bulk List_sites_proximity call, which is reasonable implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid siteId.

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