Get SharePoint Site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and required permission, but does not describe potential errors, rate limits, or what specific metadata is returned. This is minimal but adequate for a simple get operation.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the essential action and permission in the first two sentences. The Chinese intents add length but serve a purpose for multilingual intent matching. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and its prerequisite. It could mention what 'site metadata' includes, but the absence is not a major gap given the simplicity.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already defines siteId. The description adds 'by site ID' but no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Read SharePoint site metadata by site ID' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly scopes it by site ID, distinguishing it from siblings like sharepoint_get_site_by_path and sharepoint_search_sites.

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 provides clear context that the tool operates by site ID and requires the delegated Sites.Read.All permission. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like sharepoint_get_site_by_path.

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