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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so credit goes to added context: the newest-first ordering, the 100-item cap, and the has_more/next_cursor pagination contract. Returned fields are enumerated, though no rate limits or auth requirements are mentioned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the when-to-call hint and the pagination rule. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and it fully specifies the pagination protocol and size limits. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly without further inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema ('up to limit sites (default and max 100)' and cursor = next_cursor) rather than adding format or edge-case meaning beyond it.

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 (Lists) and resource (websites/sites in the connected Hostilo account), plus the scope of returned data (live URLs, custom domains, last update time) and ordering (newest first). The phrase 'Call this first to find a site' positions it against siblings like get_site and list_versions.

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 says 'Call this first to find a site,' giving clear entry-point guidance, and lays out the pagination loop (call again with cursor = next_cursor when has_more is true). It does not name which sibling to use instead once a site is identified, so it stops short of 5.

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