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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by clarifying that data is stored metadata rather than a live site fetch, but it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown site_id or whether version lists are bounded.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the contents of the return and the 'does not visit' caveat. Nothing is redundant with the title and no sentence is filler.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by listing versions, latest version id, published state, hosting and domain records. Minor gaps remain around failure modes for an unknown site_id and any size limits, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single site_id parameter is already documented as 'the id of a draft or website in the connected account.' The description reinforces that same framing ('draft or website in the connected account') but adds no new syntax, format, or sourcing hint, 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 ('Returns one draft or website') with explicit scope ('in the connected account') and keyed lookup ('by site_id'). It then enumerates exactly what comes back (versions and latest version id, published state, hosting and domain records), which cleanly separates it from list_websites and get_website_files.

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 a clear usage context (single-resource lookup by site_id) plus an explicit exclusion: 'It does not visit the website,' which steers the agent away from expecting live rendered content. It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead for live/preview content (e.g. get_preview_link) or for file listings.

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