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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing what is returned (source files, versionId, metadata, attached IDs) and implying the versionId is needed for subsequent edits, which is useful behavioral context not present in structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then caution, then the key parameter disambiguation. No sentence is redundant and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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, the description correctly fills the gap by enumerating return contents, and annotations cover safety. The only shortfall is the unexplained workspaceId parameter, which leaves a small hole for an otherwise complete read tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully clarifies worldId semantics (hosted World vs liveWorldId), but workspaceId is never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Read a hosted world site') and frames its role in a workflow ('before editing'). It also disambiguates the resource from a sibling concept ('worldId names a hosted World, not a liveWorldId'), so an agent can tell it apart from live-world tools without opening a schema.

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 a clear use condition ('before editing') and an operational caution ('Preserve unrelated files and connections'). It does not name explicit alternatives such as get_world_code_workspace or list_hosted_worlds, so routing between the read tools still requires inference.

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