Get a NEON field site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: default inclusion of data products with month ranges and provisional counts, plus optional sections. The phrase 'every data product' slightly conflicts with the schema's default products_limit of 100, but this is minor and not an annotation contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the most important return-content information, followed by a useful next-step pointer. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the rich output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential defaults, optional sections, and downstream calls. It does not mention pagination parameters, but those are visible in the input schema and are secondary for a single-site get operation.

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 67%, and the description helps map include options to their contents (releases, full description, location with elevation/UTM/properties). However, products_limit and products_offset are undocumented in the schema and the description does not compensate for those parameters, leaving a gap.

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 identifies a singular resource ('One field site') and enumerates exactly what is returned: name, type, state, domain, coordinates, DEIMS id, and data products with month ranges and counts. This distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools like neon_search_sites and product-level tools like neon_get_product.

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 gives actionable context by saying to call neon_get_availability or neon_list_files next for a product at this site. It does not explicitly say 'use neon_search_sites when you need multiple sites', but 'One field site' and the next-step guidance imply the appropriate usage boundary.

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