search_console_sites_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It declares the tool is read-only ('no mutation'), describes the exact response shape with enum values, and mentions the API endpoint. While it doesn't detail rate limits or auth scope beyond 'authenticated Google account', the behavioral disclosure is solid.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: first states the core function, then details the response, then provides usage context. No fluff. Information is front-loaded and logically sequenced.

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 single parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, return format, and usage context. No gaps remain.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the input schema already provides (e.g., trailing slash requirement, sc-domain prefix). The schema itself is thorough, so no extra value from description.

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 tool fetches metadata and permission level for a single Search Console property. It uses specific verbs ('Fetch', 'Returns') and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning alternatives for listing all properties or per-URL inspection.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool to verify write access before calling mutating tools like search_console_sitemaps_submit. Also directs users to search_console_sites_list for a full list and search_console_url_inspection_inspect for per-URL data, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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