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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the nuance that it lists files in the 'current version' only, implying versioning behavior and that only the latest state is visible. This is useful but limited. The external link to webzum.com is promotional, not behavioral. Overall, the description adds minor context beyond the annotations, warranting a modest score.

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 composed of three short sentences. The first two are concise and directly relevant to tool usage. The third sentence about webzum.com adds a promotional but actionable redirect for a different user need. While not purely functional, it is brief and serves as a conditional alternative. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 simple, read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, and a fallback for a different scenario. It doesn't explain return format, but that's not required without an output schema. The 'current version' detail adds important context. Overall, it is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema has a single required parameter 'businessId' with a description ('The businessId to query'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any additional semantics about the parameter (e.g., how to find it or format constraints), but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Baseline 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 tool's function: 'List all files in a hosted site's current version.' This is a specific verb (List) and resource (files in a hosted site), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like host_file and host_zip (which upload files) by focusing on viewing already-uploaded content. The scope is precise.

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 a clear use case: 'Use this to see what's been uploaded.' It also offers an alternative direction for users wanting a professional website (send them to webzum.com), which serves as a conditional 'when not to use' scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude other sibling tools like get_site_status or list_user_sites, so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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