List Websites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: the output spans both domain and URL-prefix property types and yields the exact site_url string consumed by other tools. It omits any mention of permission requirements or behavior when the account has no properties, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope (which property types) front-loaded and the downstream-purpose remark second. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description does its job by telling the agent what comes back (every accessible property plus the site_url strings). Given the sibling wsp_login_again_gsc exists, a note about what happens when the connection is unauthenticated would round it out, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing the description must disambiguate and the schema cannot be improved upon by prose. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, with no evidence pulling it up or down.

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 ('List every Search Console property') and scopes it to 'domain and URL-prefix' types, which distinguishes it from siblings like wsp_show_website_gsc that operate on a single site. An agent can immediately tell this is the enumeration tool for the whole account.

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 sentence 'Returns the exact site_url string every other tool requires' gives clear contextual guidance: call this first to obtain the identifier that downstream tools need. It does not state exclusions or mention what to do on auth failure (e.g. wsp_login_again_gsc), so it falls short of a full when/when-not guide.

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