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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the field inventory (persona, greeting, live status, linked sources/skills/booking) but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or whether results are scoped to all sites or one.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource definition comes before the field list. Slightly run-on in enumerating fields, but every clause is informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so enumerating the returned fields (persona, greeting, live status, linked sources/skills, booking setup) usefully tells the agent what to expect back. Combined with a fully documented input schema and read-only annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs, though ordering and cross-site behavior could have been stated.

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 all three parameters (site, limit, offset) carry explicit descriptions including defaults and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that; baseline 3 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?

Specific verb ('Lists') plus resource ('desks'), with a parenthetical defining what a desk is ('the AI front desks on a website'), which disambiguates the otherwise ambiguous term. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_desk, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the list/get distinction.

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?

The listing nature implies when to use it, and the schema's 'site' parameter points to list_sites, but the description itself never says when to use this versus get_desk, nor does it mention paging through large result sets or handling multiple sites. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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