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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates the scoped content (approved sites, specific attributes) but says nothing about return format, ordering, pagination behavior beyond the schema's cap, or any access constraints. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and lists the relevant attributes with no filler. It earns its space, though it could have slipped in a sibling-mention without bloat.

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 list tool with one fully-documented optional parameter, the description covers the essential intent and scope. However, it omits the return structure and any guidance distinguishing it from search_catalog, leaving those to be inferred.

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 coverage is 100%: the single optional limit parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Maximum number of sites to return, capped at 50'). This meets the baseline; the description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the schema already covers it.

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 clear action (get), resource (approved sites in the llmsmap.ru catalog), and the included attributes (llms.txt URLs, token counts, metadata). It's concrete, though the distinction from sibling search_catalog is implied by the 'approved sites' list framing rather than explicitly named.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling search_catalog. It doesn't say 'use search_catalog to filter by keyword' or note any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the list-versus-search split from the tool names alone.

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