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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this with "fetches no pages and changes nothing," which is consistent and rules out crawling/HTTP side effects. It also describes the returned snapshot fields in the absence of an output schema, though it omits any note on size limits or cost of the 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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the value proposition before the payload inventory and the step sequence. The em-dash field list is information-rich rather than padded, though it is slightly long for a one-parameter read tool.

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 return-shape burden and does so by listing the snapshot dimensions, the widget-kind taxonomy, and the recommended follow-up flow; scope defaults are also covered. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result without opening other tools.

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% and the single param is documented as a project id from list_projects; the description adds the meaningful default behavior ("Scoped to the current website; pass `project` to pick another") that the schema alone doesn't make explicit.

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+resource (produce a site/lead-capture strategy snapshot) and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: widget kind, live/draft status, views, completions, conversion, the six widget kinds, and suggested steps. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_widgets, list_widget_analytics or read_widget_results, which return raw lists/analytics rather than a strategy-planning bundle.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ("what should I do on my site", "audit my site") and an internal workflow (read the site, ask questions via offer_choice, rank 3-5 fixes), plus scope handling: current website by default, `project` to switch. It does not state when to prefer the raw data siblings (list_widget_analytics, read_widget_results) instead, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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