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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses pagination behavior ('Returns a page of rows') and the row_id contract that links this read to the mutation tools. It does not mention page-size limits or total counts, but the schema carries the default.

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, zero waste, with the trigger condition front-loaded and the downstream row_id contract second. 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover safety. For a 5-parameter read tool with two undocumented params (page, site_id), the description is nearly complete, with only paging semantics for the bare page/site_id params left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 60%: table, search, and page_size are documented in the schema, while page and site_id are not described anywhere. The description reinforces the table parameter's provenance via the row_id/update-site-data note but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('see records in one of their WebTwizz site's database tables') with concrete examples (bookings, orders, sign-ups, products). It distinguishes itself from the mutation siblings by noting row_id is what update-site-data and delete-site-data consume, though the contrast with list-site-data is left implicit.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when the user wants to see records...'), and the row_id note routes the agent forward to the update/delete tools. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion against list-site-data, so it falls short of a 5.

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