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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by specifying which sensitive fields are excluded (prompts, credentials, integration configuration, organization ids, arbitrary metadata) and by noting the bounded nature of the results. This goes beyond the annotation flags and helps the agent understand what to expect.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by exclusion details. No filler or repetition. Every sentence carries value, and the structure is highly scannable.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (per context signal), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the key behavioral nuance (excluded fields) and pagination concept. It doesn't mention sorting or default ordering, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable. Overall, enough for an agent 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 coverage is 50%: the cursor parameter has a description, but limit does not. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, only a hint at pagination via 'bounded page' but no direct explanation of limit or cursor behavior. Since coverage is not high, the description should compensate, but it doesn't, so this is a gap.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('websites') within the specific context of the authenticated Supovia organization. It also clarifies that it returns a bounded page, distinguishing it from single-resource getters like get_website. The explicit list of excluded fields further sharpens the purpose.

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 provides clear context: it is for listing websites in a paginated manner within the organization. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer it for list-style operations. It stops short of explicit exclusions.

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