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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about listing live sites and drafts, default personal scope, and returning 'effective edit and inactivity policies.' It does not contradict the annotations and adds context beyond the structured metadata.

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 deliver the resource, default scope, and a practical use case without filler. The wording is packed but still readable; the only minor cost is the dense list of returned fields in the first sentence.

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 an output schema present, the return values are already covered. The description provides the essential selection context (personal vs team), the connection to the account, and the read-only nature consistent with annotations. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents workspaceId as optional, exact, and team-selecting. The description repeats the default behavior rather than adding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('connected account's live Carryo websites and private drafts'), and enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like website.read or website.list_versions, which target single websites or versions rather than the website collection.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Suitable for finding a website by name' and explains the default behavior for Personal websites versus selecting a team via workspaceId. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops just short of a 5.

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