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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed world); the description adds ordering (newest first), scope beyond the caller's own content (sites shared by others, with owner/editor/viewer roles and viewer read-only), and the full pagination contract with has_more/next_cursor. These are behavioral facts the annotations do not convey.

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 purpose, then scope, then the routing hint, then pagination mechanics. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated unnecessarily.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover returns — and it does, listing the fields returned and the has_more/cursor paging signals. For a two-parameter, all-optional read tool with annotations handling safety, nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining the cursor round-trip (take next_cursor from the previous response) and restating the default/max of 100 for limit. That turns an opaque parameter into a usable workflow, though it adds no validation nuance beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (lists websites in the connected Hostilo account) and enumerates the returned fields (live URLs, custom domains, last update time, shared-site roles). It also positions itself against siblings by stating it is the discovery entry point ('Call this first to find a site'), so an agent can distinguish it from get_site/get_site_stats without opening a 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?

The instruction 'Call this first to find a site' gives a clear when-to-use rule and implies get_site is the follow-up. It also states the pagination loop condition (has_more -> cursor = next_cursor), which is actionable guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming when NOT to use it versus a sibling such as get_site for a known site ID.

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