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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that each website carries a job defining its state and that full_scrape_estimate is dynamically calculated from the latest product count on each call.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains short. The explanation of full_scrape_estimate is useful but slightly more detailed than strictly necessary, keeping it from a 5.

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 list tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the key returned concepts, including job state and dynamic scrape estimate, though it leaves minor gaps around parameter sourcing and pagination behavior.

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 single required parameter, project_id, has no schema description, so the description must supply meaning. It does so by stating that websites are listed 'of a project', confirming that project_id scopes the result. However, it does not explain format, source, or how to obtain a valid project_id.

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 a specific verb and resource: it lists the websites of a project. It also clarifies that each website includes the job defining its state, distinguishing this from generic project/job listing tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the tool is used when listing a project's websites, which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as scout_match_websites, scout_scrape_website, or scout_list_projects, nor does it mention prerequisites.

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