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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with cost transparency ("free — reads data your organisation already produced") and a hard rate limit of 100 requests/minute per API key, which directly informs call planning. It stops short of describing pagination or behavior on very large organizations, which keeps it off a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by cost and rate limit as trailing operational facts. The field enumeration is dense but every item is information an agent needs when deciding whether this tool answers its question.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the concrete fields returned. Combined with annotations covering safety and the explicit cost/rate-limit constraints, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and predict the response.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends its space on the return payload instead of inventing parameter guidance.

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+resource ("List every site in the user's organization") and enumerates exactly what comes back: latest completed audit, SEO score, grade, issues, pages crawled, last scan time, and live scan status. The organization-wide scope and per-site field list clearly separate it from get_site_report (single site) and get_scan_status, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the entry point for enumerating sites, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not condition (e.g. use get_site_report for one site's detail). The cost and rate-limit notes help an agent decide whether to call, which is useful context but not a usage rule.

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