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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations by noting the authentication requirement (OAuth or API key with read scope) and clarifying that the listing includes crawl and finding status. This is useful behavioral context without contradicting 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core action and scope are front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information. This is an appropriately sized description for a zero-parameter tool.

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 no-parameter list operation, the description is complete: it states the resource, the account ownership, the included status fields, and the authentication requirement. The annotations cover safety and idempotence, and an output schema is present, so return-value details do not need to be repeated in the description.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description correctly does not invent parameter-level details. With no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for any paramter 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a concrete resource ('sites owned by the authenticated Foliora account') and adds the distinguishing detail that crawl and finding status are included. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_snapshot or get_site_brief.

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 clearly implies when to use it: whenever the agent needs to enumerate the account's sites along with their statuses. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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