gsc_list_sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, and the service account scope is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential behavior like pagination, return format, or authentication nuances. It stops at the basic functionality, which is sufficient for a simple tool but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the action, resource, and scope. It contains no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple parameterless list tool, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool returns (sites) and the access scope. While it does not detail the exact fields in the response (e.g., site URL, permission level), the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation keep the description reasonably complete. A longer description could add examples of returned data, but it is not essential.

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, and the input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters. Per the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline score of 4, and there is nothing additional to document.

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: 'List all sites the service account has access to in Google Search Console.' It uses a specific verb (List), identifies the resource (sites), and adds the scoping detail of service account access. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search analytics or sitemap tools.

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 clearly implies usage: to retrieve sites accessible to the service account, use this tool. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, the context is unambiguous for a simple list operation. It could have been more explicit about integration with other gsc_* tools, but the core context is conveyed.

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