list_gsc_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 discloses the return format ('List of verified sites with their permission levels') and the read-only nature is implied by 'List'. However, it lacks explicit statements about authentication needs, empty-result behavior, or any side effects, though for a simple read-only list tool this is partially mitigated by the clear verb.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently adds a return format note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It states the scope ('all verified sites') and the return content ('permission levels'), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output. It lacks any caveats, but for a straightforward read-only list, this is acceptable.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly implies no arguments are needed by stating 'all sites' with no filter conditions.

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 the resource 'all sites verified in Google Search Console'. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_sitemaps and submit_sitemap, which deal with sitemaps instead of 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention that this is a prerequisite for other GSC tools or which scenarios call for it, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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