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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real value by disclosing what is returned: latest report identity, recheck status, done/confirmed counts of 'Do these first' items, the next item, and watch state. It does not cover ordering, volume, or cost of the call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that begins with the resource and then lists fields in a natural order. It is dense with nested clauses but every clause carries return-value information, so nothing is wasted.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does so thoroughly for each field. Minor gaps remain: no mention of ordering, pagination, or what happens for a user with no scanned sites.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It correctly implies the call takes no scoping arguments, returning all sites.

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 resource ('every site you scanned') and enumerates the per-site fields returned, which is far more than the title 'Your sites' conveys. It is distinguishable in content from siblings like list_scans or get_report, though it never explicitly names them.

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 'as on the dashboard' framing implies an overview/landing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to get_report, get_watches or list_scans for deeper lookups. Usage is left to inference.

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