swsd_list_sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds value by stating the exact fields returned and the purpose of validation, providing context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful behavioral context about the output shape and intent.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense with zero filler. The purpose and return fields are front-loaded, the use case is one clear sentence. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or boilerplate.

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 list tool with an output schema and only optional parameters, the description covers purpose, return shape, and a concrete usage scenario. Pagination is handled by schema defaults, and the read-only nature is captured by annotations. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 three parameters (page, query, per_page) are already well-documented with types, defaults, and constraints. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing the 'query' as a substring filter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 action ('List') on a clear resource ('SWSD sites') with explicit detail on the returned fields and a stated use case. It clearly distinguishes itself from the many other 'list' tools in the sibling set by narrowing to physical office/branch locations. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to validate site_name before incident write tools.' This is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the use case is specific enough to guide an agent. A small deduction for not mentioning alternatives, though the context signals show many list tools exist.

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