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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (sites plus crawl bounds) and the id hand-off to other tools, though it says nothing about pagination or result size limits.

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 tight sentences with no waste: the resource definition is front-loaded and the downstream id usage follows. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it does describe the payload (sites with crawl bounds). For a zero-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage this is nearly complete, with only pagination/shape specifics left implicit.

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 (empty schema, additionalProperties=false), so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. No parameter meaning is missing or misdescribed.

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 resource and scope — 'the websites this organisation audits, with each site's crawl bounds' — so the agent knows it returns the org's site inventory plus crawl configuration. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling audit.site.get (single-site retrieval), leaving that inference to the name, but the resource is unmistakable.

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 downstream context: 'Ids from here go to audit.audit.create and the finding filters,' which tells the agent exactly when this call is the prerequisite step. It lacks an explicit when-not or a direct pointer to audit.site.get for single-site lookups, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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