assets_get_external_website

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds the required license (Cortex XSIAM Premium or ASM Add-on) and the 20-ID limit, which are useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it) or describe what fields are returned, which is a notable gap given no output 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?

The description is compact and well-structured, starting with a clear title, then a concise two-sentence explanation, followed by licensing and endpoint details. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff, though the second sentence partially duplicates the schema's parameter description.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose, ID limit, license, and endpoint. However, without an output schema, it omits any information about the response structure or what 'details' are returned, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema; it repeats the 20-ID limit already present in the website_id_list description. The license and endpoint details are not parameter-related.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('Website Details') with a specific scope: 'specific websites based on website IDs.' It distinguishes from list-style tools like assets_get_external_websites by implying lookup by ID, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the description says you can submit IDs, suggesting you use it when you have known website IDs. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any alternatives, such as assets_get_external_websites, for listing websites.

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