Get site info

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and 'reference data' is consistent with that. The description adds that these are site-scoped static lists, but says nothing about pagination, auth requirements, or volume of results for a tool with no output schema.

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 no filler; the resource list is the operative content. Slightly dense as a comma list, but nothing wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries responsibility for conveying what comes back, and listing the entity types does that at a high level. It stops short of describing return shape or differences between resources, leaving the agent to discover them.

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 coverage is 50%: siteId is documented in the schema, while resource is an enum with no schema description. The description partially compensates by enumerating the same enum values and adding '(name/timezone)' detail for the sites resource, but it adds little beyond the enum itself.

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 names the resource domain concretely ('Site-level reference data') and enumerates the six entity types returned, so an agent knows this is a read-only lookup of Mindbody reference entities. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like mbo_get_services or mbo_api_get, so the distinction must be inferred.

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 statement of when to call this versus mbo_api_get or the entity-specific siblings (mbo_get_services, mbo_get_classes), and no prerequisites or selection guidance beyond the resource enum itself. Usage is only implied by the title and the list of resources.

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