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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description reinforces this by stating that opening the library 'does not change or publish a website', which usefully anticipates the publish-adjacent siblings but is close to restating the annotations. No pagination behavior or interaction model (does it open a UI surface or return data?) is disclosed.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the safety caveat second. Every clause carries weight, though the 'in chat' phrase adds more ambiguity than clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, the two undocumented pagination parameters and the total lack of differentiation from website.list leave real gaps for a tool an agent must select from a crowded namespace.

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 only 33%: workspaceId is documented in the schema, but limit and offset have no descriptions anywhere. The description adds no information about any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the two undocumented pagination parameters.

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 recognizable activity (browse websites and private drafts, then continue editing in chat), which is more specific than the bare name 'website.library'. But the title 'Carryo' is opaque and the description never distinguishes this tool from the sibling website.list or website.read, so an agent cannot tell which browsing surface to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus website.list, website.read, or website.edit, despite a dense sibling set that clearly overlaps. The only implicit guidance is the phrase 'continue editing in chat', which hints at intent but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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