gsc_site_details

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

The description discloses basic behavior (gets details for a site), but with no annotations provided, it lacks info on required permissions, rate limits, or whether site must be verified. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and parameter usage. No wasted words; easy to read.

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?

Given the output schema exists but is not shown, the description needn't cover return values. However, it omits any context about what kind of details are returned (e.g., verification status, permissions). Adequate but not thorough.

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 description adds meaning to the site_url parameter by providing format examples and a brief explanation beyond the schema, which only defines it as a string. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates partially. 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 clearly states the tool gets details about a specific site, which is distinct from siblings like gsc_audit or gsc_sites. However, it does not explain what 'details' include, slightly reducing precision.

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 implies usage when needing site details, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over gsc_sites (which likely lists sites) or other tools. No exclusion criteria or alternatives mentioned.

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