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 safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the sort order (most recently updated first) and that source text is returned, but says nothing about result volume or what a source record looks like.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource definition, then ordering, then payload. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

For a read-only, fully documented, non-nested list tool with no output schema, the description covers resource, ordering, and that text comes back. Slightly thin only on pagination expectations, which the offset/limit descriptions already handle.

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%, with site, limit, and offset each documented including the next_offset idiom, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'website's' and 'most recently updated first'; it adds no syntax or edge-case 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 ('Lists a website's knowledge sources') and even defines the resource parenthetically as the pages its desks answer from, plus the ordering and that text is included. It is clearly distinct from list_desks/list_sites/list_skills, though it never explicitly acknowledges those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for a site's knowledge sources, and the schema's 'site' description points at list_sites for the id. There is no statement of when to prefer this over other list tools or any prerequisites.

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