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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the exact field set returned, DFS ordering, and an approximate size (~2KB) that tells the agent the response is cheap to fetch. It does not mention pagination or depth limits, but the size hint is substantive.

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?

A single tight sentence with the payload shape front-loaded and the usage cue trailing. No filler, nothing repeated from the name or annotations.

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 does useful work by enumerating the returned fields and payload size, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. It falls short of fully complete only in not clarifying its relationship to the similarly named search_site_nodes/get_site_node siblings.

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 'id' parameter is documented in the schema ('Site id. Pass it on every call.'). The description adds no additional meaning about the id, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameters applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('list' + node tree) and characterizes the payload precisely (fields returned, DFS order, ~2KB). It implies the relationship to siblings like search_site_nodes by describing the 'find ids and section order' use case, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

'Use it to find ids and section order' gives implied usage context, which is more than nothing. However, it does not state when to prefer this over search_site_nodes, list_block_nodes, or get_site_node, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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