List visible controller sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that the result set is filtered by the authenticated account's visibility, which is genuine added value. It stops short of describing ordering, result size, or what the truncated field list actually contains.

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 sentence is front-loaded with the verb and scope, which is good, but it terminates mid-clause with an ellipsis ("connectivity flags, and…"), leaving an unfinished enumeration. That is a structural defect rather than verbosity — the description is short but incomplete rather than tight.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, most of the agent's needs are covered elsewhere, and the visibility scoping is the key non-structured fact. However, the description is visibly cut off, so the reader cannot know whether it originally contained additional guidance on returned fields or call conditions.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List sites") and adds a scope qualifier — sites visible to the authenticated Viewer or Admin account — plus a partial enumeration of returned fields. That is enough to distinguish it from sibling list_* tools such as list_clients or list_acls on resource grounds alone, though it names no sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: the visibility qualifier tells the agent results are account-scoped, which is useful context for when to reach for this tool. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_site_info or get_topology, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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