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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds meaningful context the annotations do not carry: listing is free (no quota cost), page size is capped at 100 rows with up to three earlier audit receipts appended, and results are scoped to the authenticated owner and active organization.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then pagination and scope facts, with no filler sentences. Slightly compressed phrasing ("sites prompts") costs clarity without saving much length.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does so reasonably: page size, the extra audit receipts, the _links.next pointer, and ownership scoping. An agent can call and paginate it correctly; only the sibling differentiation 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 coverage is 83%, so the structured fields already document most parameters. The description adds a rule the schema does not state: language and source filters must be preserved when following the cursor, which is essential for correct pagination. It does not, however, mention report_id's dependency on source=weekly beyond what the schema says.

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?

"Find saved sites prompts before generation" identifies the verb (find/list) and the resource (saved site fix prompts), and the title reinforces it. However, "sites prompts" is awkward shorthand, and the description never distinguishes this tool from the closely named siblings list_audit_fix_prompts and list_domain_fix_prompts, leaving the agent to infer the scope from the 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?

The phrase "before generation" implies a usage moment, and "Keep language and source filters when following the cursor" gives a concrete procedural rule for pagination. But there are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternatives among the three sibling list_* prompt tools, so the routing decision is only implied.

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