get_site_pause

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the input schema annotations. It implies a read-only query operation, which aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true), but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'ESA proxy configuration' entails. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description meets a baseline by not contradicting them but offers little extra insight.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Queries') and resource ('ESA proxy configuration of a website'), with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, annotations provided), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain the return values (no output schema exists) or how the ESA proxy configuration relates to other site operations, leaving gaps in full contextual understanding despite the structured data covering basics.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single 'siteId' parameter. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates for gaps nor enhances understanding of the parameter's role in the query.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Queries') and resource ('ESA proxy configuration of a website'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_certificate' or 'get_record', which also query configurations but for different resources, leaving room for slight ambiguity in sibling context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention related tools like 'list_sites' (which might be needed to obtain siteId) or 'update_site_pause' (which modifies the same configuration), nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual triggers for usage.

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