Site: List_sites_proximity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only the domain meaning of 'proximity' (Bluetooth/WiFi mobile-pass); it says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or volume, which would matter for an all-sites listing.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its scope are stated immediately, and the parenthetical definition earns its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: an agent gets no sense of what a proximity record contains or how results are ordered. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 fully documents offset and pageSize including defaults and max, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable here.

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 (proximity information) plus scope (across all sites), and parenthetically defines what proximity data means (Bluetooth/WiFi mobile-pass), which is genuinely clarifying. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling Get_site_proximity, though the 'across all sites' scope implies the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: the plural/all-sites framing suggests the bulk-listing counterpart to Get_site_proximity, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent can infer the case but is not guided.

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