gsc_list_sites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a read-oriented listing bounded by credentials, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, permission implications, or whether the results are complete or limited in any way.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that immediately states the action, the resource, and the credential scope. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 listing tool, the description is largely sufficient: it tells the agent what the tool returns conceptually and what scope applies. The lack of an output schema and the absence of any note about usage context keep it from being fully complete, but the simplicity of the tool limits the gap.

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 input schema is empty, so there is nothing the description needs to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies a clear resource ('all Google Search Console properties accessible with the current credentials'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like gsc_get_site (single property) and gsc_list_sitemaps (sitemaps, not sites).

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 its use case: enumerating available GSC properties before working with a specific one. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus gsc_get_site or other site-level siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical call patterns.

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