gsc get site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'exact permission level' detail, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations. Yet it mostly reinforces the read-only nature rather than disclosing new context like pagination or error behavior, so it earns a solid mid-range score.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and adds the API method in parentheses without extra fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly point to gsc_list_sites as the alternative for listing all properties, but the 'one property' wording and the availability of an output schema make it sufficiently 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 already explains siteUrl thoroughly, including examples and the GSC_SITE_URL fallback. The tool description itself contributes no parameter-specific details, so with high schema coverage the baseline of 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?

The description states exactly what the tool does: 'Get one Search Console property and its exact permission level'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier 'one' clearly distinguishes it from listing all properties. The parenthetical '(read-only sites.get)' also identifies the underlying API method, making the purpose unambiguous even among many siblings.

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 'one Search Console property' clearly signals this is for retrieving a single, specific property rather than listing all of them, which implicitly contrasts with gsc_list_sites. However, the description does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage routing.

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