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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the project-scoping trait (websites in a Project) but does not disclose return format, pagination, auth, or error behavior; with annotations carrying the safety burden, this is minimal added context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action; the second sentence adds high-value usage context. Nothing extraneous.

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 simple read-only list with one required parameter and annotations covering safety, the description gives enough to call it and explains why it matters downstream. It omits return shape and pagination details, but those are minor for this complexity level.

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 single projectId parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying 'in a Project' signals that projectId identifies the project, but it adds no format, source, or example beyond the property name, leaving the parameter largely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('websites in a Project'), scoping it to a project's sites. This distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools for other resources like articles or backlinks, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides clear context that this list supplies the siteId most other tools require, telling the agent when this tool is needed. It does not name when not to use it or an alternative tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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