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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: auth scope (the authenticated user's own websites), result ordering, and the exact return fields including the app URL path. It omits pagination behavior and limits, which the schema only hints at via cursor.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with scope/ordering front-loaded and the sibling redirect placed last. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: it enumerates id, name, framework, visibility, and the app URL pattern. Combined with the ordering and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit and cursor, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., paging semantics, default page size) beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list the authenticated user's websites) plus scope (own websites) and ordering (most-recently-updated first). It also names the sibling read_website with the distinction, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes agents to read_website for the live URL and production deployment, which is a clear when-to-use-this-instead signal. It gives no guidance on the other list_* siblings or on when listing is inappropriate, so it stops short of full conditional coverage.

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