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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that only safe identity and status fields are returned, excluding prompts, credentials, integration config, org ids, and metadata—valuable context about the response's security boundary beyond 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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the exclusions are stated efficiently. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values are covered. The description addresses pagination, scope, and security-related exclusions. It could mention error behavior or explicit authentication, but 'authenticated' is included. For a read-only list, this is nearly complete.

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 mentions 'bounded page' which implies pagination, but it doesn't explain the limit's range or purpose. The cursor is already documented in the schema, so the description adds minimal semantic value for the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a resource ('websites') and scope ('authenticated Supovia organization'), and notes it returns a 'bounded page'. This clearly distinguishes it from get_website and other list_* siblings by resource.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name sibling tools or conditions (e.g., use get_website for a single website). The purpose is clear but usage context is left to inference.

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