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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the prerequisite of an active Privacy & Cookie Policy, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering beyond what the schema already implies.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action stated first and the prerequisite second. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. With no output schema, it could have said more about what is returned or how paging works, but the gaps are minor.

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 100%, so all five parameters (kind, lang, page, size, site_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics beyond that baseline.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (PCP services added to a site), scoping it to a site rather than the global list_pcp_services. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_pcp_services or get_site_pcp_service, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

It gives a precondition ('Requires an active Privacy & Cookie Policy on the site'), which is genuinely useful usage context, but offers no guidance on when to choose this over list_pcp_services or the singular get_site_pcp_service, and no exclusions.

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