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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds the return field shape and the session-start sequencing hint, but says nothing about pagination, account scoping limits, or error behavior for a tool whose scope is 'this account'.

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 purpose, then the field list and the cross-tool routing. No wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, so naming the returned fields (id, host, name) is genuinely useful and partially fills that gap. It stops short of describing scope or volume of results, but for a simple read-only list tool this is close to sufficient.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The mention of 'id' is output semantics rather than input semantics, which is helpful but not required here.

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 ('List this account's websites') and even enumerates the returned fields (id, host, name). It is immediately distinguishable from all siblings, which are get_*/list_* tools over different resources.

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 concrete downstream routing: use the returned id as site_id in propose_* and log_activity, and call get_agent_tasks at the start of a session. It does not name an exclusion or a competing alternative, but for a zero-param discovery tool there is little ambiguity to resolve.

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