gsc_list_sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lists' clearly signals a non-destructive read operation, and 'accessible to the authenticated user' adds valuable scoping context about auth-based filtering of results. It omits the return shape and whether unverified properties are included, but for a parameterless list call these are minor gaps.

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 14-word sentence with zero filler. The verb, resource, and scope are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It could not be meaningfully shortened without losing information.

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?

The tool is low complexity: no parameters, no annotations, no output schema, no nested objects. The description tells an agent exactly what operation occurs and under what access constraints. The only missing element is the return format (a list of site entries), which is reasonably inferable from the 'Lists' verb and tool purpose.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to add beyond the schema. Per the rubric baseline for 0 parameters, this is a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') with a clear resource ('all sites in Google Search Console') and an access scope ('accessible to the authenticated user'). The 'all sites' phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling gsc_get_site, which by naming convention targets an individual site.

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 implied rather than stated: the verb 'Lists' and the contrast with gsc_get_site suggest this is the enumeration entry point, but the description never explicitly says to call this first to discover available site URLs before using site-targeted tools like gsc_get_site or gsc_query_performance. For a zero-parameter tool the gap is moderate, not severe.

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