autotask_get_company_site_configuration

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

Without annotations, the description only states a read operation. No information about auth, rate limits, side effects, or output behavior is provided. The name implies safety, but the description does not confirm or add detail.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first states the action, the second provides actionable guidance. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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 discovery purpose and lack of output schema, the description should elaborate on what the returned records contain (e.g., field metadata). Simply mentioning 'records' without structure is insufficient for an agent to interpret results.

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%, and the schema already explains the parameter. The description adds no new meaning about parameters, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves company site configuration records with a specific verb ('Get') and resource. The additional instruction 'Call first to discover available fields' distinguishes it from create/update siblings and emphasizes its role as a discovery tool.

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 the tool should be used before operations requiring field knowledge, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is functional but lacks depth.

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