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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: declares sort order (newest run day first), pagination contract ('pass next_cursor verbatim as cursor', null on last page), null semantics for deleted prompts and unmatched framing, and the not-found behavior for hosts outside the project. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs and none are in 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, and every clause carries information (ordering, window default, returned fields, cursor protocol, error case). It is dense and runs long as a single colon-introduced sentence, which makes it slightly harder to scan, but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description enumerates the returned fields (platform, prompt, run day, cited URL, framing, excerpt) including their null conditions, and it documents pagination and the not-found case. For a read-only paginated list tool this is complete enough to call correctly on the first try.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description carries the load and does so for three of five params: hostId's provenance, window's allowed values and default, and cursor's round-trip rule. limit and pageSize are covered only by the schema text ('Results per page', 'The same setting as limit. Send either.'), and the description does not mention them at all, which is the only gap.

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 ('answers that cited one Lookalike site'), scoped to a single hostId, and explicitly distinguishes itself from devtune_list_lookalike_sites by naming it as the id source and the window-matching reference. An agent can tell what this returns and how it differs from the sibling list tool without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly states the selection condition for the window parameter ('from the last 7, 30 or 90 run days when window is given... or every retained answer otherwise'), which is real usage guidance, and points to devtune_list_lookalike_sites to obtain hostId. It does not state when to prefer this tool over other answer-level list tools (e.g. devtune_list_positioning_answers), but the filtering semantics are unambiguous.

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