List Shield sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description earns credit for spelling out the shape of the returned record (per-site identity plus last-event and today's event/risky-event counts), which is behaviorally informative. It omits account/scope caveats and any pagination or result-size behavior.

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: the first defines the resource and returned fields, the second front-loads usage guidance. No filler, and the actionable routing cue is placed last where it reads as the takeaway.

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 parameters, no output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs to call it and interpret the result. Minor gaps remain around result size, ordering, and what 'today' means (time zone), but these do not block correct invocation.

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 and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or argument-based scoping; the caller just invokes it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('FindIP Shield sites on your account') and enumerates the fields returned (ID, name, domain, status, last event time, event counts). It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but 'Start here to find the site to ask about' distinguishes it from lookup_ip, recent_risky_events and explain_event by positioning it as the object-discovery step.

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?

'Start here' gives clear guidance on where this tool fits in a workflow, implying it precedes per-site or per-IP queries. It stops short of saying when not to use it or naming the specific follow-up tools, so the routing 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.