gsc_get_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the operation is a read/get, which implies safety, but it says nothing about response shape, error behavior, acccess requirements, or supported site-URL nuances. This is minimally transparent for a simple getter but leaves key behavioral details unspecified.

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, direct sentence that communicates the action and resource without redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter getter.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool, the description plus schema is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of any information about the return payload or edge cases (e.g., invalid siteUrl, unverified site) leaves a noticeable gap in completeness.

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%, with the siteUrl parameter already documented via examples and format hints ('https://example.com/ or sc-domain:example.com'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 the action ('Gets information') and the specific resource ('a specific site in Search Console'). It distinguishes itself from gsc_list_sites by emphasizing the singular 'specific site', though it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify what 'information' includes.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings like gsc_list_sites, gsc_query_performance, or gsc_get_sitemap. There are no exclusions or context clues beyond the basic 'specific site' framing, so the agent is left to infer the right usage.

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