Get Site Details

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'including permission level' adds useful scope, but the description does not address possible errors, authorization requirements, or what happens when the property is not found. For a simple read tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it communicates the core purpose and a key detail without 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 tool with one parameter, a well-described schema, and an output schema available, the description covers the essential purpose adequately. It lacks explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but the simple retrieval scope is otherwise complete.

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% and the single parameter site_url is already well documented with format and examples. The description only restates the concept of a specific property and adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('a specific GSC property'), and identifies a concrete included field ('permission level'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_properties by emphasizing the singular/specific nature of the operation.

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 phrase 'for a specific GSC property' implies when this should be used, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to prefer. Sibling tools like list_properties, analyze_site_health, or add_site are not mentioned or excluded.

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