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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: idempotency ('calling it again returns the existing website'), return value ('Returns the website_id'), and the default classification behavior ('unclassified sites read as "owned"'). This is rich context that annotations alone do not provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently cover alternatives, side effects, return value, and parameter guidance. Every clause earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully addresses prerequisites, behavior, and return value. It mentions idempotency, the relationship with run_audit, and classification semantics, leaving no critical gaps in understanding.

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 both 'url' and 'kind' thoroughly. The description adds only minor usage context ('Pass kind to classify it as owned or prospect up front'), which is helpful but largely redundant with the schema's detailed enum explanation. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Register a website with the organization') and explicitly distinguishes it from run_audit by noting it does so 'without running an audit'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from the most relevant sibling tool.

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 explicitly states when this tool is needed ('only needed to set a site up ahead of time') and names the alternative (run_audit) that also registers automatically. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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