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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying that this retrieves the chatbot's role, tone, and rules, while making no contradictory claims about side effects.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant details. It front-loads the action and resource, and the clarifier about role, tone, and rules is concise and useful.

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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context for correct use. The scope and content of the returned instructions are sufficiently indicated, and the schema fills in the parameter 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 optional parameter website_id is fully explained in the schema, including its source and default behavior when omitted. Since schema coverage is 100% and the tool description adds no additional parameter context, 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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('AI instructions'), and the scope ('one website's chatbot'). It also names the content dimensions ('role, tone and rules'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_website or get_widget_settings.

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 intended use is implied by the description and parameter semantics, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_ai_instructions or get_widget_settings. It does not state when to use it versus related read tools, though the purpose is reasonably clear.

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