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 behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the field list signals the return shape, but there is no disclosure of permissions needed, error behavior when a siteId is invalid, or response format. Adequate but thin for an unannotated tool.

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?

One efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned-field parenthetical earning its space since there is no output schema. No waste or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose and previews the return payload, which compensates for the absent output schema. Missing only usage routing against sibling lookup tools.

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% — the siteId parameter documents its format ('contoso.sharepoint.com,guid,guid'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a SharePoint site') and enumerates the returned fields (ID, URL, description, lists), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_site_by_url, search_sites, or list_my_sites, which is the only thing keeping it off a 5.

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 gives no indication of when to prefer this tool over get_site_by_url, search_sites, or list_my_sites, nor any prerequisite (e.g. resolving a siteId from search_sites first). Usage is only implied by the name, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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