list_properties

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it claims to return ALL accessible properties and discloses that property type and permission level are surfaced. It omits pagination or credential-scope caveats, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then usage, then sibling routing. Three tight sentences with no waste, each adding distinct value.

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 covers everything an agent needs: what it returns (property type, permission level), when to reach for it, and which siblings to use instead. Nothing essential 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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly implies the tool is unfiltered and scoped only by credentials, which is the relevant semantic for invoking 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 (list) and resource (Google Search Console properties) with scope ('every... the credentials can access') and even enumerates what's included (property type and permission level). It distinguishes itself from get_property_details and add_property by name, so an agent can identify it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when the user wants to see which sites they can query before choosing one') and routes to alternatives: get_property_details for a single known property and add_property only for registering a new site. This is a full when/when-not/alternative treatment.

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