Site: List_site_access_points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile of this read is covered. The description adds only the parent-scoping fact, disclosing nothing about pagination, result size, or filtering behavior beyond what structured fields provide.

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 short sentence with the resource and the scoping constraint front-loaded, and no filler whatsoever.

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 scoped list tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering the read-only/open-world character, this is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that no output schema exists and the description says nothing about result shape or pagination, though that is not essential here.

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%, so both siteId and the filter parameter are already fully documented in the schema, including the Brivo filter syntax and operator set. The description only echoes the site-scoping relationship and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 a specific verb (List) and resource (access points / doors) with a clear scope constraint (belonging to a site). This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling List_access_points, which is global, but the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 'belonging to a site' phrasing implies usage context (use this when you have a siteId and want its doors), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as List_access_points. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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