Retrieve a site

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description's 'Read-only' simply repeats this and adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication needs, error behavior when the ID does not exist, or what happens with unknown IDs. For a read tool with full annotation coverage, it is consistent but adds almost nothing beyond them.

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 very short and front-loaded, but 'Read-only.' is redundant with the annotation and the parenthetical endpoint adds little beyond the tool name and schema. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention where site IDs come from (e.g., placetel_list_sites) or what the returned 'site' represents, leaving useful context absent. Since there is no output schema, some return-value framing could have helped.

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 both the id path parameter and the response_format enum fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 site', with the endpoint GET /sites/{id}. This is clear enough to distinguish from broader listing tools at a conceptual level, but it does not explicitly reference the sibling placetel_list_sites or explain why an agent would choose this single-site retrieval over that listing tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as placetel_list_sites. The description only implies usage by including the path /sites/{id}, leaving the agent to infer that this requires a known site ID and should be used for single-record lookup.

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