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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new context: it needs a personal connector token, changes nothing, refusal is surfaced verbatim, and the draft preview link only appears after an edit from here. Auth and permission semantics are disclosed beyond the structured fields.

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?

The purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and each clause (permissions, token, no side effects) carries information. It is a single dense, run-on sentence, however, which makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be explained, yet the description still summarizes fields usefully. With permissions, token requirement and the conditional draft link all covered for a one-parameter read tool, an agent has enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts an event id or the organizer's spelling of the name. The description adds no extra syntax, format or resolution-order detail, so the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Lists the websites of an event ... built in the Sonar Connections site builder') and enumerates the returned fields (siteId, name, published, version count, timestamps, live address, draft preview). This clearly separates it from sibling site_get, which would fetch a single site, and from site_create/site_edit.

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 a clear precondition and audience: only the event organizer or the host of a personal event can list, and 'anybody else is refused'. It does not explicitly route the agent to an alternative (e.g. site_get for a single site), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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