get_site_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any authentication or access prerequisites, rate limits, or error conditions. The phrase 'Get details' implies a safe read but fails to disclose potential side effects or required permissions, leaving the agent without crucial context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and specifies the key details, achieving maximum conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable overview but lacks specifics about the response structure or any edge cases. It indicates verification and permission level, which hints at the output, but does not specify how the result is returned (e.g., as fields, booleans, etc.). For a tool this simple, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already describes the siteUrl parameter thoroughly (URL-prefix vs domain format), and coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate without any extra contribution.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'details about a specific Search Console property', then specifies the details (verification status and permission level). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_properties (list all properties) and performance analytics tools, so an agent can immediately understand the tool's scope.

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 usage for a single property when you need verification or permission details, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. It does not say when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need a list of properties), leaving that inference to the agent. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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