search_console_sites_get

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only ('no mutation'), describes the response shape, and explains the return value. However, it does not mention error cases or what happens if the property is not found, which would be beneficial for an agent.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first states the action, second describes the response, third gives usage guidance and alternatives. No filler or repetition. Highly efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral and return aspects. It explains that the tool returns permission level and is read-only. However, it lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but the overall completeness is good given low complexity.

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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'site_url', including examples. The description does not add new semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema offers. Baseline at 3 is appropriate since the schema is self-sufficient.

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 'fetch' and the resource 'metadata and permission level for a single Search Console property'. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly referencing alternative tools like search_console_sites_list and search_console_url_inspection_inspect, aiding in correct selection.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'to verify whether the authenticated account has write access before calling mutating tools like search_console_sitemaps_submit'. It also tells when not to use it by suggesting alternatives for listing properties or per-URL data.

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