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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the satey profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by extension the connection prerequiisite and by listing the exact fields returned (name, URL, access mode, last published). It makes no claims that contradict the annotations.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and output fields, the second gives a real-world use case, and the third states the prerequisite. Information is front-loaded and no word is wasted.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the operation returns, when to use it, and what is required to use it. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter org_name is already described clearly in the schema, incluidng the default if omitted. The description doesn't add any additional parameter-level nuance or syntax, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('websites in a Valet organization') and enumerates the returned fields (name, URL, access mode, last published). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_site, which fetches a single site, and list_site_connectors, which lists connectors, by stating the scope as the entire organisation.

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 gives a concrete use case: recovering a site's name after an earlier publish has scrolled out of the conversation. It also notes the prerequisite of having a connected Valet account. While it doesn't explicitli name alternative tols or state when-not-to-use, the list-scope makes the context clear enough for an agent to select it over more specific site tools.

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