Get all sites

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' restates structured data rather than adding context. It says nothing about pagination behavior, result completeness, or what the response contains beyond the bare GET /sites path.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. It is efficient, though the telegraphic style edges toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 paginated list endpoint with page and per_page parameters, the description never indicates whether results are paginated, how large the default page is, or whether the list can be treated as complete. With no output schema to explain the return shape, these gaps are left entirely to inference.

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%, with page, per_page, and response_format all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get all sites'), and the endpoint path reinforces it. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling placetel_get_site, so an agent must infer that this is the list variant from the name alone.

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 placetel_get_site (single site) or other list endpoints, and no mention of prerequisites or filtering options. The agent gets a verb and nothing about selection criteria.

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