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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that by explaining how the result set changes depending on token type, which is important for the agent to interpret the response correctly. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying useful information: the action, the token-scoped behavior, and a recommended invocation order. No filler or redundancy.

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 discovery tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the auth context, the scope difference between token types, and when to call it first. No further context is needed to invoke it correctly.

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 is 4. The description compensates by clarifying what the result list will contain based on the token type, which is the only semantic information an agent needs beyond the empty schema.

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 and resource: it lists websites accessible by the current API token. It also distinguishes the two token types and their different scopes, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_overview or get_pages.

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 description gives clear context on when to call the tool: 'Call this first when using a workspace token.' It explains the difference between workspace and website tokens, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Since no sibling tool overlaps with this listing function, the guidance is sufficient.

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