Get one AmeriFlux or FLUXNET site

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral context they don't: emails are suppressed by default, include_contacts is server-gated by a privacy setting, and the data policy is returned 'with what it means.' It stops short of disclosure on response size or truncation for large sites.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: identifier forms first, payload contents next, routing advice last. The telegraphic comma-separated style is efficient; a slightly clearer sentence boundary between payload and next-step guidance would help readability.

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?

With an output schema present, enumerating return fields isn't strictly required, yet the description gives the agent enough to know this payload satisfies site-detail questions. Privacy defaults and next-step tools are covered; only the search-vs-get decision is unaddressed.

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%, so site, include, and include_contacts are already fully documented, including the enum values and the default-all behavior. The description echoes the identifier forms without adding syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('one site'), the accepted identifier forms, and enumerates the returned content (location, IGBP/Köppen, DOIs, years per product, team, variables). This is far more specific than a restated title and makes it trivially distinguishable from amf_search_sites and amf_get_availability.

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?

It gives explicit next-step routing: 'call amf_get_availability for exact years or amf_get_citation to cite it.' What's missing is the inverse guidance against the closest competitor, amf_search_sites (i.e., 'use this when you already have an ID; otherwise search first').

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