Get Website Metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The term 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the specific list of metadata fields gives some transparency about what is returned. However, it does not disclose potential caveats like data freshness, authentication requirements, or response structure beyond the listed 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get metadata') and lists key fields. Every word earns its place, with no superfluous information.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It identifies the resource and the type of information returned. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., a single object), but the listed fields sufficiently convey the expected output.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by listing the specific metadata categories that will be retrieved, which gives the agent a sense of the output shape without needing parameter documentation.

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 function: 'Get metadata about the tracked website' and enumerates specific metadata fields (domain, timezone, name, KPI settings, currency configuration). This distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools like get_realtime or get_overview, which focus on time-series or aggregated data.

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 usage context by naming the resource (website metadata) and fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. An agent could infer it from the distinct metadata focus, but no direct guidance is given.

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