assets_get_external_websites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a license requirement and the API endpoint/method, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination behavior or that an empty request returns all results. These are important behavioral traits for a listing tool, though the 'Get' verb partially implies read-only.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The header 'Get All Websites' is somewhat redundant with the first sentence, and the endpoint information could be considered extra, but overall it is efficient with no significant wasted words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned, but it only says 'complete or filtered list' without specifying the fields or structure of each website record. It also does not provide examples or guidance on using the complex filter and pagination parameters, leaving significant gaps for such a data-rich 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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it is not required to since all parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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: 'Get a complete or filtered list of your public-facing websites.' The verb 'Get' is specific and the resource 'public-facing websites' is unambiguous. The plural 'websites' distinguishes it from the singular sibling tool 'assets_get_external_website', and the separate 'services' and 'last_external_assessment' tools have different scopes.

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 implies use for retrieving website lists but provides no explicit usage guidance or mention of alternative tools. It states a required license, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage condition, and does not say when to use this over other asset tools or 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.