get_site_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that a ResourceNotFoundError is raised for missing sites and returns a dictionary, which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, authorization requirements, or performance characteristics.

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 relatively short and structured with Args, Returns, Raises sections. It is efficient but could be more concise by removing redundant phrasing. Overall, it is well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers the basic return type and error condition. Since an output schema exists, the return values may be detailed there. However, the description lacks information about what 'detailed site information' includes, and the parameter is minimally described. The tool is simple, so this is adequate but not 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter 'site_id'. The description's Args section says 'Site identifier', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. No additional context like format, examples, or constraints is provided.

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?

Description states 'Get detailed site information', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving site details. The verb 'get' and resource 'site details' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_site_health_summary or get_site_inventory, leaving ambiguity about what 'detailed' 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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to avoid, or alternative tools. The description is purely functional with no usage context.

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