get_connected_site

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds 'Authenticated via API key. Max 10 concurrent requests. Read-only, safe to retry,' providing extra context about usage limits and idempotency beyond the 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 concise and well-structured: first line provides purpose, followed by usage guidelines, authentication/rate limits, parameter explanations, and return format. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (read-only retrieval with two parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, parameters, authentication, rate limits, and return structure. No gaps.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining the 'connected_site_id' parameter (obtain from list_connected_sites) and the optional 'account' parameter (with example and reference to list_accounts). It also details the return JSON structure.

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve the full record for a single connected site including its tracking script,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from siblings like 'list_connected_sites' and 'create_connected_site.'

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use when you have a connected site ID and need its script snippet or installation status.' It also tells when not to use it: 'Use list_connected_sites to browse all sites and discover IDs instead.' Additionally, it mentions authentication and rate limits.

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