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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals meaningful behavior: stale allowlist entries persist on public sites and can be cleared via set_allowlist with an empty array. This adds practical, non-obvious operational context directly relevant to using the tool correctly.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose is front-loaded, the public-site caveat is explained, and the actionable call-before instruction is included. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how public visibility interacts with the allowlist, and when to call it. Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already fully documents site_id and workspace_id. The description adds conceptual context about what is being inspected but does not need to repeat parameter-level details.

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 states a clear, specific action: 'Show who a site is currently shared with' including both visibility and allowlist entries. It distinguishes itself from sibling write tools like set_allowlist, add_to_allowlist, and remove_from_allowlist by framing this as the read-only inspection counterpart.

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 instructs the agent to 'Call this before adding or removing people' to avoid overwriting the existing list. It also covers an important nuance—public sites ignore the allowlist—which helps the agent decide when this tool's results are relevant.

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