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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explicitly states that reading does not restore the version or change the current website, which is a key behavioral trait for an agent to know. It also clarifies the scope (HTML and 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 with zero waste. The core action and resource are front-loaded, the required parameters are stated, and the critical non-destructive behavior is called out. Every sentence 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values don't need to be described. The description covers what it reads, the required parameters, and the non-destructive behavior. It could mention that this is for a 'previous' version vs. current, which it does. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., for current site use website.read), but the context is sufficient for a read-only tool with full schema coverage.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (linkId and versionNumber) with descriptions. The tool description adds the requirement that both are needed ('Requires linkId and versionNumber') and clarifies that versionNumber refers to a 'specific previous' version, but this is marginal value over the schema. Baseline 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 ('Reads'), a specific resource ('HTML and metadata of a specific previous Carryo website version'), and its purpose ('viewing, comparison, or restoration planning'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like website.read and website.list_versions by focusing on reading a specific previous version rather than the current site or listing versions.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: when you need to read a specific previous version, and it explicitly notes that reading does not restore or change the current website. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like website.read or website.list_versions, but the context of 'previous version' vs. current site is clear enough to guide selection.

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