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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the cross-site default scope of other tools and the data model (everything belongs to one site). That's real context an agent couldn't infer from annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then the data-model context, then the actionable guidance. No filler or repetition of the 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields. Combined with the scope guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and use the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description uses the space to explain how the values returned here feed the site argument on other tools, which is meaningfully useful even though it isn't describing this tool's own (empty) input.

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 (sites) this connection can act on') and even enumerates the returned fields (id, name, slug, active). This clearly separates it from the singular get_site sibling.

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?

Explicitly explains the downstream use: pass an id as the site argument on any other tool, and without one tools read across all sites. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_site, but the routing guidance is concrete and actionable.

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