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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the result set mixes managed hosting servers with user-owned WordPress sites, and both are editable through different tool families. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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?

The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second paragraph earns its place by explaining the important distinction between the two result types and the relevant edit tool families. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

Given the empty schema, the read-only annotations, and the output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what is listed, the two categories of resources, and how to act on each afterward. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 and resource: it lists the websites the user can edit. It clearly distinguishes between Opus Growth hosting servers and connected WordPress sites, and even names the tool families used to edit each. This allows an agent to differentiate it from sibling tools like list_accounts without opening schemas.

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 description explains the two kinds of results and which edit tool families apply to each, giving clear context for when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of list_accounts', but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer when to call it.

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