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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds return-side context the annotations cannot carry, namely that results are permission-scoped to the caller's sites and include role and region; it stops short of stating result size or whether results are ever truncated.

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, both load-bearing: the first describes the payload, the second gives the sequencing rule. The prerequisite is placed last where it reads as the action directive, and nothing is repeated from the annotations or title.

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 burden of explaining return values, and it does so fully enough for an agent to decide it has the slug it needs. For a zero-argument, read-only entry-point tool this is the right amount of information.

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 no parameter meaning to add and the baseline applies. The description correctly spends its words on output content and call ordering instead of inventing arguments.

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?

Names the resource (sites) and precisely enumerates what comes back for each: the caller's role, the data region, and a dashboard link. The scoping phrase 'you can work in' distinguishes it from any site-agnostic listing, and none of the siblings perform this function.

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 an explicit ordering instruction ('Call this first') plus the reason that selects it: every other tool consumes a site slug produced here. That is a when-to-use rule an agent can act on without inspecting other schemas.

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