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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the result set includes both sc-domain and URL-prefix property types. It doesn't cover pagination or authentication details, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, this is solid coverage.

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 with no filler: the verb and resource come first, and the 'including...' clause earns its place by clarifying the scope of returned property types. Appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with safety annotations, the description adequately states what is returned and at what scope. There is no output schema, so some description of return content is needed, and naming both property types gives the agent a reasonable expectation of the response. Minor omissions like return format and empty-result behavior are acceptable at this complexity level.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to document, and the input schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List Google Search Console properties connected to this CalmSEO account') and further specifies the scope by naming both property types returned (sc-domain and URL-prefix). This clearly differentiates it from the closest sibling, list_gsc_sitemaps, which targets sitemaps rather than properties.

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 phrase 'connected to this CalmSEO account' implies a selection context (enumerate the account's linked GSC properties before choosing one to query), but the description never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so usage guidance is only implied.

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