get_sites

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves sites and raises an error on API failure. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is minimal transparency.

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 concise (two sentences plus Returns and Raises sections). The structure is clear and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the Returns and Raises sections are somewhat redundant given the output schema, but they do not detract from conciseness.

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 (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the 'self' parameter or provide any usage context. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. Additionally, no mention of pagination or limits, though the output schema may partially cover return values.

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 input schema has one parameter 'self' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain its meaning or format. The tool description adds no value beyond the schema. An agent cannot infer how to correctly populate the required 'self' parameter, making invocation error-prone.

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 action: 'Retrieve all sites in the user's Bing Webmaster Tools account.' The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'sites' are specific, and the scope is clarified. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from other get_* sibling tools like get_url_info or get_site_roles, which might cause confusion for an agent deciding between them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent would need to infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection among many similar siblings.

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