swsd_get_site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds useful context beyond them by enumerating the returned fields (name, location code, description, time_zone) and by framing the tool as one step in a list-then-get flow.

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 tight sentences with the core action first, the return shape second, and the discovery hint last. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations needs little more than this. The description covers purpose, record identification, return contents, and id discovery, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

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% and the id parameter's own description already states it comes from the matching swsd_list_* tool, so the description's id guidance largely repeats the schema. Baseline 3 applies; no additional format or validation meaning is contributed.

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?

Names a specific verb (fetch) and resource (one SWSD site), clarifies what a site is (office/branch location), and scopes it to a single record by id. That single-record scope plus the explicit pointer to swsd_list_sites separates it cleanly from the list sibling.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: call swsd_list_sites first to obtain the id, which is the main way an agent would misuse this tool (guessing ids). It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown id, but the when-to-use routing is clear and actionable.

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