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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial beyond that: the returned fields (clone_url, is_default), pagination semantics (next_cursor/has_more), and a real correctness trap ('site names are dashboard labels, not SEO page titles'). This is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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?

Four tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, then defaults, then pagination, then the naming caveat. No filler; everything earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so describing return fields and pagination is exactly what's needed, and it does that. It stops short of covering the `limit` parameter or what else a site object contains, leaving a small gap for a 3-param list tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains cursor-driven paging implicitly via next_cursor and scopes the tool to a project, but never mentions the `limit` parameter or the required projectId's format. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Find the Replo site') plus resource and scope ('within a project'), with the intent triad 'inspect, manage, or clone'. An agent can tell it apart from create_site/update_site/list_projects, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete decision rules: use the site with is_default true when the user names none, and ask the user if no default exists. It also prescribes the pagination procedure before concluding a site is absent. Clear context, but no explicit routing to alternative tools (e.g. get_project).

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