get_site_filters

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full disclosure burden, and it delivers: the exact response shape is shown, and the non-obvious semantics of empty allowed lists and public_dashboard are explicitly clarified. This prevents misinterpretation of an empty list as 'nothing allowed' and clearly defines public access.

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 front-loads the core purpose, then gives a compact but complete response example and two critical semantic caveats. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is fully self-sufficient: it explains what is returned, how to interpret the values, and what the access implications are. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The single parameter is fully covered by the schema ('site_id from list_sites'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for 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 opening line 'Who gets counted on a site, and who may look at the stats' precisely identifies the tool's resource (site filters) and separates it from the stats-querying siblings. It is a specific verb+resource description, not a tautology, and the response sample further confirms it returns filter configuration.

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 clear context that this tool is for reading a site's inclusion/exclusion and access rules, so an agent knows to use it when it needs those settings. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_site_filters or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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