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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond this by disclosing the token-dependent dual behavior: fetching specific configuration when a token is present versus returning the website list when it is absent. This helps the agent anticipate surprising return behavior.

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 concise sentences front-load the primary purpose and then provide the conditional invocation details. No redundant words or filler; every sentence 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?

The output schema is present, so return values need no further elaboration. The description covers the main invocation nuances, though it does not explain how the workspace token itself is supplied or what happens if both parameters are provided. These are minor gaps for a read-only settings tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting the parameters to the authentication context ('with a workspace token, pass websiteId or domain') and by clarifying the no-token fallback behavior, which influences when the parameters are relevant.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get website configuration', and enumerates the exact fields returned (domain, timezone, currency, KPI goal, color scheme). This differentiates it from sibling analytics tools like get_breakdown or list_websites by focusing on settings, not metrics or website enumeration.

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 clearly explains the two invocation contexts: with a workspace token, provide websiteId or domain; without one, the tool returns the website list. This gives recognizable when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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