list_sites_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the list is accessible by the authenticated user and that it returns entries with permission levels and site URLs, providing useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether pagination is used, or any rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded: one sentence states the action and scope, and the second defines the return value. There is no unnecessary detail, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a listing operation. It clearly states what is returned and the scope. It could have mentioned error behavior or auth prerequisites, but these are not critical for a simple list tool and are largely covered by 'accessible by the authenticated user.'

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, and the description correctly adds no parameter information. Per the rule, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description's note about the return content (permission levels and site URLs) enriches understanding but is not parameter-related.

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 tool's function with a specific verb 'List' and resource 'Search Console properties', and explicitly scopes it to those accessible by the authenticated user. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_site_tool (single property), add_site_tool, and delete_site_tool.

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 implies usage for listing all properties, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use this to get the site URLs needed for other tools' or 'use get_site_tool for a specific property.' Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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