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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no operational context of its own — no mention of result count, ordering, pagination, or what a returned entry contains — leaving the burden unmet for a listing 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?

It is a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. However, it terminates in an ellipsis instead of enumerating the set, leaving the sentence deliberately incomplete rather than concise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it only gestures at it with a trailing list plus ellipsis. Combined with the undefined term 'micro-tools' and no sibling differentiation, an agent lacks enough to invoke this correctly.

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 100% and the single 'language' parameter is fully documented in the schema including the pt/pt-BR fallback behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the verb 'lists' and a resource, 'micro-tools', but never defines what a micro-tool is; the parenthetical (title, meta, canonical, OG, JSON-LD) could be describing the tools themselves or the fields they check. It also fails to distinguish this from the sibling get_tool, so an agent can't confidently separate them.

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 statement of when to call this rather than get_tool, list_sites, or list_tabs, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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