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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds useful behavioral specifics: it returns HTML, version number, hosted-image metadata, and image limits, and explains that replacing an existing asset path does not consume a new image slot. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, all substantive. Front-loaded with the primary purpose and return contents, then the image-slot caveat. No filler or repetition of schema property names.

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 single-parameter read tool with readOnly/destructive annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is read, what is not returned, and an edge case about image slots. Nothing the agent needs to decide whether to call it or interpret its purpose 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 parameter (linkId) is already self-describing in the schema. The description doesn't add new detail about the parameter's format or constraints, but it does state the tool's scope (existing website or draft), which is lightly relevant. Baseline 3 applies because schema fully covers this simple parameter.

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 ('Reads') and a precise resource: the current HTML, version number, image metadata, and image limits of a Carryo website or private draft. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like website.edit and website.read_version by focusing on reading current content rather than modifying or inspecting a specific historical version.

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?

The description gives clear use cases: inspecting a page or preparing edits that preserve existing images. It also clarifies that it returns metadata, not image files, which helps an agent choose this over tools that may return binaries. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is adequate for selection.

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