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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is settled. The description contributes scope context ('hosted sites control all content below the universal account and gem header') but says nothing about what the read returns, its size, or error cases.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The 'universal account and gem header' sentence is domain jargon but carries real scoping information, so it earns its place.

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 carries the burden of explaining what comes back; it names the artifacts read but not the return shape or format. It also omits any relationship to get_hosted_world, leaving an agent to guess between the two.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 ('Read') and two concrete resources ('hosted JavaScript site package' and 'window.HostedWorld contract'), and explicitly contrasts itself with the Genesis Worldstream controller SDK. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closer siblings get_hosted_world and get_genesis_sdk.

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?

Says 'This is separate from the Genesis Worldstream controller SDK,' which implies the agent should pick the Genesis SDK tool for controller work, but never names that sibling or states when-not to use this tool. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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