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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the returned content (list of platforms and time estimates) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any limitations, pagination, or data source behavior. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. The grammar is slightly awkward ('The website builders and CMSs there are...'), but it conveys all key information without unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key facts: what is listed (platforms with install instructions), the time information, and when to invoke it. It could be more explicit about the return format, but it is sufficient for an agent to call it appropriately.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description need not discuss parameter details, and it doesn't.

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 states the tool lists website builders and CMSs that have step-by-step install instructions, along with install duration. The scope is specific and easily distinguished from siblings like get_install_snippet, get_pricing, and verify_installation.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Call this first when you do not know what the contractor's site is built with.' This gives a clear trigger and ordering but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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