analyze_site

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate non-destructiveness. It adds value by detailing the return object and listing parameters with constraints, but could be more explicit about side effects (none). No contradictions with 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 dense but efficient, starting with purpose and example. However, it is a single block of text that could be more readable with structured sections or bullet points.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description provides comprehensive information: what it does, how to call it, parameter details, return fields, and usage boundaries. It is complete enough for an agent to execute correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by listing all 7 parameters with ranges, defaults, and whether they are required. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 this tool is for analyzing a single lat/lon for data-center suitability, with an example query. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_sites and find_alternatives by explicitly stating what not to use it for.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (user has one specific site) and when not to use (comparing multiple sites or finding alternatives), naming the specific sibling tools to use instead.

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