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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's trailing 'Read-only' merely repeats that. It does add real value by disclosing that the payload includes negative information ('what is not available through the connection'), which shapes how an agent should interpret the response, but it says nothing about response size, caching, or freshness.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence lists the returned content categories in priority order, followed by a two-word safety note. The 'Read-only' sentence is redundant against the annotations, a minor piece of dead weight, but the description is otherwise tight.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description's job is mainly to convey what comes back — and it does so by naming the four content categories. Slightly more detail on the shape of the values (e.g., that limits are reported per file type) would close the remaining gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 and resource ('Returns what this Benchlight connection supports') and enumerates the concrete contents: file types, size limits, draft/preview lifetimes, and unsupported features. That resource is naturally distinct from the sibling tools (create_website, list_websites, get_website), though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery/metadata call to make before creating drafts, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use for...' statement. No alternatives or preconditions are named.

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