List Search Console 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, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it lists every accessible property for the connected account and explains that the returned site URLs are prerequisites for other Search Console tools. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is compact and scannable, the return value is explained with concrete examples, and the 'Use when' line adds a practical trigger without wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with two parameters, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool returns, gives example values, names downstream consumers, and provides a use case. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the return-value explanation. Minor gaps include not mentioning pagination or the exact JSON structure when response_format is 'json', but these are not critical for a simple listing tool.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'connection' is the name of a configured Google connection, and 'response_format' is the output format with default 'markdown'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, especially for the connection parameter. It could be improved by noting possible values for connection, though that may come from list_connections.

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 resource ('every Search Console property (site or domain) the connected Google account can access'). It clearly distinguishes this from GA4 siblings by naming Search Console, and it explains the returned site URLs are needed by gsc_query_search_analytics and gsc_inspect_url, further differentiating it from those tools.

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 provides an explicit 'Use when' statement with a concrete user question: 'What Search Console properties do I have access to?'. It also notes the output is needed by sibling tools, giving practical context. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like ga4_list_properties, but the use case is clear enough.

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