get_website_by_keyword

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It claims support for 'up to 20 keywords' but the input schema has no parameters, creating a contradiction. No other behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, rate limits, error behavior) are mentioned.

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?

The description is relatively concise (three sentences) but includes information that contradicts the schema, reducing its effectiveness. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but the mismatch undermines its value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain return values or possible error cases. It provides some context via the sibling tool mention, but the missing parameter definition makes it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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 100% but the schema defines zero parameters. The description adds information about keywords that is not reflected in the schema, causing confusion. It does not clarify how to pass the keywords when the schema has no parameters.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: getting a company website URL by keyword or company name. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'scrape_contacts_from_website' by noting it is used to obtain the domain before scraping contacts.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: it can be used when only a company name is known and the website domain is needed before scraping contacts. It also mentions that up to 20 keywords are supported per query, but does not specify when not to use it.

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