Get a site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Body fields: none' which clarifies no request body is needed, and provides the HTTP method and endpoint. However, it does not describe response behavior, error cases, or other side effects, so it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes the endpoint and reference link without any unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 GET-by-ID tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate: it states the action, provides the endpoint, notes the absence of a body, and gives a reference link. It does not explain the return value or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a reference, it is reasonably 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 describes the path parameter siteID with minLength 1, and the query is open-ended with no documented names. The description only mentions 'Body fields: none' and does not elaborate on the siteID parameter or query semantics. With 50% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter details.

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 'Get a site' and provides the exact HTTP endpoint with {siteID}, clearly indicating it fetches a single site by its ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sites (plural) and the create/modify/delete operations.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sites or create_a_site. It relies on the tool name and endpoint to imply usage, but there is no explicit guidance on selection criteria, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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