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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description adds valuable context by describing the returned fields, the auth modes, and behavior when nothing has been crawled ('empty list if nothing has been crawled'). This goes beyond what annotations and schema provide, even if pagination and return shape are not discussed.

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, each earning its place: purpose and return fields, downstream consumers, then auth/error behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: purpose, return contents, auth requirements, error conditions, and empty-list behavior are all covered. An agent can safely call it with confidence.

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?

The schema already documents appId at 100% coverage, and the description adds meaning: it clarifies when appId is required, when it is ignored, and how it interacts with 'ethora-app-select'. This satisfies the baseline and exceeds it with useful conditional behavior.

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: 'List an app's crawled website sources' with concrete output details (id, URL, current RAG tags). Explicitly distinguishes itself by noting that these ids feed downstream source-management tools, so an agent can tell it apart from related site operations.

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?

Gives clear context on when to call it: app-token mode vs B2B mode requiring an explicit appId. Also covers expected error cases and empty-list behavior. It does not name alternative tools to avoid or compare against, but the auth-mode guidance is specific enough for correct invocation.

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