retrieve_site_tracking_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context beyond annotations by stating 'Fetches data. Makes no changes to your ActiveCampaign account' and specifying the HTTP method and endpoint. This reinforces the non-destructive nature without contradicting annotations.

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 relatively short but contains some redundancy (e.g., two sentences about fetching data and making no changes). The use of emoji and labels adds visual structure, but the content could be more streamlined.

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 simple status retrieval tool with full annotation coverage and well-documented schema, the description is adequate. However, lacking an output schema, it would benefit from describing the response structure (e.g., 'returns {siteTracking: enabled/disabled}').

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. No additional meaning is provided, but the baseline is adequate.

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 explicitly states 'Get site tracking status (enabled or disabled)', clearly identifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_event_tracking_status' and 'retrieve_site_tracking_code' by specifying 'site tracking status' and including 'READ-ONLY' and 'GET /siteTracking'.

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 use for checking site tracking status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'enable_disable_site_tracking' or 'retrieve_event_tracking_status'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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