list_sites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies that it lists 'verified properties' and returns 'site URLs and permission levels', which adds useful context about scope and output. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a read operation.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and output without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Lists all verified properties'), making it efficient and easy to parse. Every sentence adds value, justifying a top score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, and the output schema will handle return value details. However, it could improve by adding usage context or behavioral traits like rate limits, slightly reducing completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on the tool's function and output. This aligns with the baseline for zero parameters, earning a high score for not adding unnecessary information.

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 clearly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('all verified properties in Google Search Console'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_sitemaps' (which lists sitemaps) and 'query_search_analytics' (which queries analytics data). However, it doesn't explicitly mention sibling differentiation, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_sitemaps' or 'query_search_analytics'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing verified properties) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone. This minimal guidance warrants a low score.

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