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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real behavioral context: ordering is most-recently-edited first and pagination defaults to 20 per page. It does not need to restate the read-only nature given the 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?

Three sentences with a clear front-loaded usage trigger, then return shape, then an explicit exclusion. No filler and nothing repeated for its own sake.

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 two-parameter, zero-required list tool with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to reach for it, what it returns, ordering, and paging defaults.

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 both limit and cursor are fully documented in the schema, including the 1–50 range and the 20 default. The description only restates the page size default and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('list'/'websites') and names the scope (websites the Supovia support chat runs on). It also enumerates the returned fields (id, name, domain, agent status), so an agent can distinguish it from get_website and from the conversation-oriented siblings.

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 two concrete triggers: when someone asks which websites the chat runs on, or when a website id is needed. The trailing exclusion ('Not for customer conversations') usefully routes away from the conversation tools, though it does not name the specific alternative (get_website/list_conversations).

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