List websites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the returned field set, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume despite page/limit parameters existing.

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, and the payload contents are front-loaded before the usage hint. 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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. Pagination/filtering behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but slightly under-described for a list tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (p, limit, type, search) are already documented with defaults and semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the hint that most operations need a numeric site id, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (PHP sites) and enumerates the returned fields (id, domain, root path, remark, expiry, backup count), so an agent knows exactly what this call yields. It doesn't explicitly contrast with near siblings like site_list_domains or ssl_list, so it falls short of 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?

"This is the entry point for any site operation, since most actions need a numeric site id" gives a clear condition for reaching for this tool first. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer site_get for a known id).

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