swsd_list_sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by listing the returned fields and framing the call as a pre-write validation step; it does not mention pagination limits, which is a minor omission given the page/per_page params.

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 short sentences, zero filler. Scope and return shape come first, and the actionable usage guidance is front-loaded at the end without padding.

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?

A simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, so return values need no prose. The description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: why and when to call it.

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 coverage is 100%, with page, per_page, and query all documented in the schema itself including defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., matching semantics of the query substring), so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('List SWSD sites') and disambiguates the term with a parenthetical gloss ('physical office/branch locations'). It also enumerates the returned fields, making it clearly distinct from sibling list tools such as swsd_list_departments or swsd_list_groups.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: validating a site_name before calling incident write tools, which is exactly the kind of precondition an agent needs. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming an alternative lookup path, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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