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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds that results are aggregated per agency with site counts, which is useful context, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, or shape of the returned entries.

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, no filler. The positive definition comes first and the disambiguation second, which is the right order for a scanner reading the first clause only.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description mentions the key return attribute (site counts) and rules out the most likely misselection. For a zero-parameter read-only lister this is nearly complete; only the exact response shape per integration is left implicit.

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 and the schema is an empty closed object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the note about site counts incidentally signals the aggregation granularity of the output.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: the Royal MCP integrations/tool sets each site exposes to Royally, aggregated across the agency with site counts. It also explicitly disclaims the near-identical sibling concept (installed WordPress plugins), so an agent can distinguish it from wp_list_plugins or get_plugins without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit negative case and names the correct alternative: 'This is not the list of WordPress plugins installed on sites; use recipe__fleet_inventory for that.' What is missing is positive framing of when an agent should reach for this (e.g. auditing which sites expose which tool sets), but the disambiguation is clear and actionable.

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