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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the team scope, the output fields (URL, publish state, setup progress), and the dependency of sibling tools on its siteId. It doesn't mention pagination or limits, but for a simple zero-param list tool, this is adequate and consistent with the read-only hint.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose and key output fields are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is concise and actionable. Every clause earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 that the tool has zero parameters, an output schema exists (though not shown in the input), and annotations cover read-only safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent when to use it, what it returns, and how it fits into the broader mini-site toolchain. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description provides no parameter-specific details because none exist; there is nothing more to add. The schema coverage is effectively 100% (no properties), and the description's mention of 'currently selected team' clarifies the implicit context, which is valuable.

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'), resource ('bio pages/mini sites'), scope ('currently selected team'), and the returned fields (public URL, publish state, setup progress). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that other mini-site tools consume its returned siteId, which differentiates it from list_teams and other list tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool first when the user mentions 'my bio page', 'link in bio', or 'mini site', and explains the relationship to every other mini-site tool (they take the siteId it returns, and can omit it when there's exactly one site). This provides clear when-to-use and alternative routing with no ambiguity.

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