ncloud_drm_get_site

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'detailed information' — it does not mention what fields are returned, whether the site must be enabled, or any other behavioral traits. Given the annotation covers the safety profile, this is acceptable but minimal.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. There is no redundant wording, and the key information (action + resource) is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple read tool with one parameter and a readOnlyHint annotation. The input side is well covered by the schema. However, since there is no output schema, the description's phrase 'detailed information' is vague and does not specify what aspects of the site are returned (e.g., status, configuration, policy associations). This is a moderate gap, but overall the tool is simple enough that the description is minimally viable.

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 fully describes the single parameter (siteId) with a clear explanation that it comes from ncloud_drm_list_sites. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific DRM site'), clearly indicating a read operation for a single site. It distinguishes from siblings like ncloud_drm_list_sites, ncloud_drm_create_site, and ncloud_drm_update_site by implying a specific site rather than a list or mutation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it complements ncloud_drm_list_sites, or that it is for retrieving details rather than creating/updating. The schema parameter description hints at a prerequisite (siteId from ncloud_drm_list_sites), but the description itself provides no usage context.

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