Get site settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: 'Requires an Administrator account,' which is a real access prerequisite. It also clarifies the scope of what is read, which is useful context. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 one efficient sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by a compact field enumeration and the permission requirement. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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, read-only, optional-single-parameter tool, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns, what permission is needed, and the schema fully documents the only parameter. There is no output schema, but the enumerated settings provide enough information for an agent to understand the expected response.

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%, and the single optional site_id parameter is already fully explained in the schema, including the fallback behavior and reference to list_sites. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because the schema carries the complete burden here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the site's core settings,' then enumerates the exact fields returned (title, tagline, timezone, date formats, etc.). This level of specificity makes it distinguishable from sibling tools like get_site, site_info, and update_site_settings without needing to inspect any schema.

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 when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description merely states that it reads settings and requires an Administrator account; it does not tell the agent when to prefer this over get_site, site_info, or get_options, nor when to use update_site_settings instead. The read-only intent is implied by the verb, but that is only implicit.

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