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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns the embed code and field list, which is useful but not rich behavioral context (e.g., no mention of defaults, pagination, or response shape). With the safety profile fully covered by annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One concise sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the returned fields in a compact enumeration. No filler words, and the list adds substantive detail without bloating the description. Every token earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of documenting the return shape; it does so by enumerating key fields (name, domain, platform, widget id, embed code). For a simple get-by-id tool with a single optional parameter and annotations covering safety, this is sufficient. Minor gap: it assumes the agent knows what the 'embed code' is and doesn't hint at other possible fields, but the main expected values are covered.

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 100% coverage: the single parameter `website_id` already describes its source ('from list_websites') and default behavior ('Omit to use the account's primary website'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a resource ('the full record for one website') and enumerates the returned fields (name, domain, platform, widget id, embed code), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_websites (list) and get_website_features (subset of features). An agent can confidently select this tool for fetching a complete single-website record.

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 usage: 'Get the full record for one website' contextualizes when to use it (need full website details). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like list_websites for summaries or get_website_features for feature-specific data, leaving the agent to infer the differentiation.

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