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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful disclosure: the result set excludes secrets, contacts and original files, which tells the agent not to expect sensitive or downloadable content. It says nothing about pagination behavior, authorisation requirements, or result ordering.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the field-scope constraint lands early. The phrase 'through the existing application' adds nothing and could be cut without loss.

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 should sketch the return shape; it only says 'metadata/approved fields', not what a site record contains or whether counts/totals come back. Pagination and the meaning of an empty result are also unaddressed, though the annotations relieve it of explaining destructive or write semantics.

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 0% and the description never mentions limit, offset or query. 'query' in particular is ambiguous — full-text search over which fields? — and neither the 1-100 limit bound nor the offset cap is explained. With zero schema documentation the description needed to carry this and does not.

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 and resource ('Read authorised copliancy sites') plus the field scope ('Metadata/approved fields only'), which is enough to know what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_locations, get_copliancy_summary, or list_copliancy_licenses, so an agent must infer the boundary between sites and licenses/summaries.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion beyond 'through the existing application', which reads as filler. The agent is left to guess whether this belongs in a compliance drill-down or a location lookup flow.

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