get_site_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read operation (getting details) and indicates the expected input format, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or error responses. The description adds some context but is not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise—just two sentences for the main purpose, plus a multi-line parameter explanation. Every part is necessary: the main purpose, the parameter definition with examples, and the subdomain note. No fluff.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema (not shown). The description explains the input thoroughly and references where to find valid values (list_properties). It does not describe the output, but the output schema covers that. Missing explicit error scenarios or prerequisites, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 0%, leaving the description to add all meaning. The description thoroughly explains the site_url parameter: its source (list_properties), exact format with examples (including the sc-domain: prefix), and a key behavioral note about domain properties covering all subdomains. This provides complete semantic understanding beyond the schema's type and title.

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 starts with 'Get detailed information about a specific Search Console property.' which clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (detailed information about a Search Console property). It differentiates from siblings like list_properties by specifying it's for a specific property.

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 guidance on the site_url parameter, including example formats and an important note about domain properties covering subdomains. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool and how to construct the input, but it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.

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