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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the response includes the caller's permission level per property, and the auto-pick behavior of sibling tools that determines whether siteUrl is needed. No return envelope or pagination details, but meaningful added value.

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?

Three compact sentences: what is listed, what it returns, and how to use the result. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no wasted 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?

For a zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (properties plus permission level) and the cross-tool contract for siteUrl. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description also adds semantic context about the `siteUrl` value produced here and consumed by other tools, tying the output to a parameter elsewhere in the toolset.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Search Console properties), names the two property forms (domain or URL-prefix), and specifies the returned detail (permission level). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_search_console_property_details and get_property_details, which return details for a single known property.

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?

Explicitly explains the downstream purpose of the result: 'Pass one as `siteUrl` for the other tools', and clarifies the conditional requirement ('only required when more than one property is reachable; the other tools auto-pick a single reachable property'). It tells the agent how this tool fits the workflow, though it does not state when *not* to call it or name a direct alternative lister.

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