Détail d'un site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP method (GET), which is consistent with annotations but does not describe response format, error handling, or any side effects. Since the annotations carry most of the transparency burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise, just a single line. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes the endpoint for reference. There is no waste, though the lack of additional context means it is not a 5.

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's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any mention of what the 'detail' includes (e.g., fields returned) and does not hint at whether the response is the same as listSites items. Given the large number of sibling tools, a bit more context would help, but it's not severely incomplete.

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%, meaning the schema documents the single parameter siteId as a 'hashid'. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. For a single parameter already well-documented in the schema, the baseline of 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 says 'Détail d'un site' (Site details) and includes the HTTP endpoint, which makes the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like getSiteStats or listSites, so it loses a point for lack of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely a statement of what it does, with no mention of scenarios where it should be preferred over listSites (which lists sites) or getSiteStats (which provides stats). An agent would have to infer usage from the name and endpoint.

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