Get one owned site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that owner emails are included, which is helpful, but it does not disclose failure behavior or permission requirements; with annotations present this is acceptable but not outstanding.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the action and the resource with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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-only getter with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description is enough: it states what is returned and the schema defines exactly how to pass the id. No critical invocation detail 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 tool description says nothing about the id parameter, but the schema covers it completely (100%) by explaining its source, its opaque nature, and examples. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description contributes no extra parameter meaning.

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 states a concrete action ('Returns') and a specific resource ('one verified site'), and it adds the owner-email detail, which distinguishes it from a generic site fetch. It does not explicitly contrast with get_site, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies this is the tool for retrieving a single verified site, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not route between get_verified_site and get_site. The useful provenance hint ('as returned by list_verified_sites') lives in the schema, not in the tool description.

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