Get site details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific fields returned and the 'current site' concept, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements or error handling. Moderate context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and then lists the returned fields, with no redundant or filler content.

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 getter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description provides sufficient information: it identifies the resource and the fields returned. It doesn't elaborate on behavior when no site is selected, but this is a minor gap given the schema's site_id hint.

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 already describes the single optional site_id parameter with a clear description ('Override the currently selected site') at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Returns the current site's details' with a specific resource (site details) and lists the exact fields returned. It distinguishes from sibling 'pushengage_update_site_details' by using 'get' vs 'update'.

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 implies usage for fetching the current site's details, matching the dashboard page. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the verb 'return' and the optional site_id override make the usage context clear. The sibling tool list provides implicit distinction.

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