site_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (40 fields including SSL, backend config, permissions, etc.), which goes beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose and key details. No unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys essential information.

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?

No output schema, but the description covers the return scope (all 40 fields) and gives examples (SSL, backend config, permissions). For a read-only tool with solid annotations, this is mostly complete. Could mention pagination or error cases, but not required.

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?

Only one parameter 'site_id' with full schema documentation (100% coverage). The description does not add additional syntax or meaning beyond referencing the schema. Baseline score 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get full details') and resource ('single site by id'). Specifies the output scope ('all 40 fields including...'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sites_list' (which lists sites) and 'site_update' (which modifies).

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 implies use when detailed info on one site is needed, vs. 'sites_list' for a list. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative names, but context signals and sibling list make it clear enough.

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