site_match

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'identifies' a site, implying a read-only lookup, but doesn't specify what happens if no match is found (e.g., returns null, error), the matching logic (exact vs. partial), or any performance considerations like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 purpose without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the tool's intent.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., site details or null), error conditions, or how it differs from similar siblings like 'list_sites.' This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively in complex scenarios.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'recordName' documented as 'The name of the site to match.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't explain format constraints or matching rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 as 'identify which site in the account matches the provided input criteria,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_sites' (which presumably lists all sites) by focusing on matching against criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other potential matching tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 prerequisites, such as whether the site must exist in the account, or compare it to siblings like 'get_record' or 'list_sites' for different lookup needs. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without clear usage rules.

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