Get a site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. 'Get' implies a safe read, but there is no mention of permissions, how many 'récents' audits are returned, pagination, or error behavior when the id is unknown.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and payload front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly what leaves the behavioral and routing gaps.

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 getter with no output schema, the description does state what comes back (metadata and recent audits), which is the minimum an agent needs. It remains thin on the depth of that payload and on how this tool relates to the audit-oriented siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, the site id, already documented in the schema as 'Identifiant du site.' The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline 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 names a specific resource (un site) and states the returned payload (métadonnées + audits récents), which is more than the tautological title 'Get a site'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_site_audits and get_audit by bundling metadata with recent audits, but does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to call get_site versus list_sites, get_audit, or list_site_audits, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid site id. With ten sibling tools, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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