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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavioral detail: which fields appear per kind, that fields of other kinds are absent, and critically that a password-gated service reports being gated but never exposes its visitor password. That secrecy guarantee is exactly the kind of trait an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Purpose and identification are front-loaded in the opening sentences, and the per-kind field enumeration is organized and earns its space. It is somewhat long and dense across two paragraphs, but there is no filler and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema and a low required-parameter count, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating what each kind returns plus the auth prerequisites for each identifier. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, org_name, and site_token with their mutual-exclusion semantics. The description largely restates these (account requirement, anonymous site token) without adding format, default, or org_name behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (Get) and resource (one website, app, or agent) and states the identification key (by name). It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling list_services, which returns many. The description also proactively states the per-kind field shape, so an agent knows exactly what it is retrieving.

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?

It clearly frames the tool as single-item retrieval and gives the two identification paths (name requiring a connected Valet account, or site_token for anonymously published sites), which is real when-to-use context. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative (list_services) or an exclusion condition, so it is clear context rather than explicit routing.

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