get_site_info

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

readOnlyHint=true already conveys safety, so the description's added value is elsewhere: it discloses the return surface and, importantly, freshness semantics ('preview_img — the latest homepage screenshots ... refreshed after publish_site') plus exact viewport variants. It stops short of stating any auth, quota, or failure behavior, but for a zero-param read tool that gap is minor.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the primary payload and then the preview image detail. The parenthetical enumerations are dense but every item (colors, typography, layout, language, payment methods; 1920_1080 / 430_932) conveys concrete return content rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, no input parameters, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description carries the full burden of describing what comes back — and it does, naming the top-level fields, the settings categories, and the image variants. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could add. It correctly avoids inventing pseudo-parameters.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get full site information') immediately followed by an enumeration of the exact fields returned (name, domain, settings sub-fields, preview_img). This tells an agent how it differs from neighbors like list_my_sites (inventory) and get_current_context (ambient state).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that screenshots are 'refreshed after publish_site' hints at when the data is freshest, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative versus list_my_sites / get_current_context. The agent must infer that this is the detail-fetch for the active site.

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