get_site_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose output content plus multi-agent constraints (agent-scoped tabs, TAB_NOT_OWNED cross-agent rejection, cap default 8 max 1-64). However, the tab/cap details are tangential to a guidance-lookup tool and add noise rather than clearly describing freshness, caching, or side-effect-freedom.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then use-cases, then related tools, so the most important content comes first. The trailing multi-agent cap sentence is somewhat disconnected boilerplate that dilutes the otherwise tight structure.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and when to call it. It stops short of clarifying whether guidance is cached/versioned, which matters for repeated calls.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'domain' parameter already documents format and examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get site-specific automation guidance for a domain') and enumerates the return content ('selectors, navigation patterns, and tips'). It is clearly distinguishable from the snapshot/text-reading siblings it names.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: 'when starting work on a new site or when standard selectors fail.' It also names related tools (get_page_snapshot, get_dom_snapshot) as contrasts, though it does not state when NOT to use this tool.

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