get_hosts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying the scope ('all sites' meaning no filtering) and the output content ('URL, verification status'). While it doesn't disclose pagination or rate limits, the annotation lowers the bar, and this additional context is useful.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, has good annotations, and a fully described schema. The description explicitly states the output fields (URL, verification status) and the scope (all sites), which is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool returns and how to invoke it. There are no significant gaps.

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 only parameter, 'format', is fully described in the schema with an enum, default, and description. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, and with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all sites in Yandex.Webmaster', with specifics on output ('URL, verification status'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_diagnostics or get_search_queries, which target different data. It is specific and non-tautological.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving a list of all sites, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Sibling tool names hint at distinct functions, but the description alone offers no explicit guidance, so usage context is only implied.

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