gsc_get_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions 'read-only sites.get', which is a clear indication of a non-mutating operation. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, authentication requirements, or behaviors for invalid site URLs. The read-only trait is helpful but incomplete.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get one Search Console property') and immediately adds the distinguishing detail about permission level and the API method. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is a simple getter with a single parameter and no output schema. The description mentions the returned permission level, which partially addresses the return value. It does not detail error handling or edge cases, but for a straightforward read operation with one parameter, this is reasonably complete. The sibling gsc_list_sites is implicitly differentiated by 'one', though not explicitly named.

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 parameter siteUrl is thoroughly documented with examples and a default. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'one Search Console property', and distinguishes it by adding 'and its exact permission level' and the API reference 'sites.get'. It unambiguously differentiates from gsc_list_sites (which lists multiple properties) by specifying 'one'.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gsc_list_sites. It implies a single-property use case via 'one', but does not state when to choose this over listing or mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools.

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