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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the composition of the result set (own hosting containers plus connected third-party WordPress sites) and the edit routing per category.

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 scope statement is front-loaded in the first sentence. The closing line ('Both are editable — they just use different tool families') restates the preceding parenthetical mapping and is marginally redundant, but the rest of the text earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained. The description covers scope, category semantics, and edit routing adequately; it omits any note on ordering, freshness, or pagination, which is a minor gap for a listing tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so this dimension defaults to the baseline of 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly focuses on output scope instead.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource ('Lists the websites you can edit') and immediately resolves the mismatch between the name list_servers and the fact that it returns two distinct categories. It also names the sibling tool families (site_write_file/site_run_command vs wordpress_*) that act on each category, so an agent can route without opening other 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 clearly explains what each returned item represents and which tool family edits it, which is strong implied usage guidance. It does not, however, explicitly address when to call this versus the closely related siblings list_sites and list_wordpress_sites, so the selection logic is inferred rather than stated.

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