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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds that the tool reports coverage and page counts. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as default status filtering, pagination limits, or the overall response structure.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and then give a practical use case. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 read-only list with optional parameters, the description conveys the core idea and enough to attempt a basic call. But with no output schema, it omits useful context like the exact fields returned, whether status defaults to active, and how limit and search shape the results.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate by explaining 'limit', 'search', or 'status'. The schema provides defaults and one field description, but the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own.

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 ('Show'), a resource ('sites the index covers'), and an output detail ('page counts'). It clearly conveys the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like list_watches or index_stats.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'Use this to understand coverage before concluding that something is missing.' This is useful context, but it does not mention exclusions or when an alternative tool should be preferred.

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