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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added value is the returned value shape (`tr_TR`), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about behavior when both or neither identifiers are given.

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 `[read]` tag and the return example, with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the definition is close to sufficient, but the nullability of both identifiers leaves a real ambiguity about a valid call that the description does not resolve.

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 0% and both parameters are nullable with no descriptions, so the schema alone is uninformative. The description compensates partially by framing the two identifiers as alternatives, but it does not explain which is required, precedence when both are supplied, or accepted formats for the UUID.

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?

It names a specific resource (a website's content language) and gives a concrete value example (`tr_TR`), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It sits among many get_*_language siblings and get_website_* siblings, but the resource distinction is clear enough from the description itself.

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 `[read]` prefix signals a safe lookup and 'Pass `website_id` or `website_uuid`' tells the agent how to call it. There is no guidance on when to prefer it over get_website or the other *_language tools, and no statement about what happens if neither identifier is supplied.

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