Get Website

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that Hudu polls the host on a schedule and records uptime, TLS, WHOIS, and DNS, and that a 404 is ambiguous between missing record and unrouted path. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the description supplements rather than repeats the safety profile. No contradiction exists.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by useful domain context and usage guidance. The final 'Operation class: Read' is slightly redundant given the annotation, but the overall structure is efficient and earns its place. Six sentences for a simple tool is appropriate.

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 read tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what a website is, what data it contains, and the 404 ambiguity. The user can infer the return shape from the entity description (uptime, TLS, WHOIS, DNS). The tool is simple enough that this is a complete description.

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%, with descriptions for both 'id' and 'response_format' including default and enum meaning. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'numeric id', so it correctly relies on the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'Fetch one website by its numeric id', a specific verb+resource+method that clearly distinguishes it from list/create/update siblings. It further clarifies that a website is a live monitor rather than a documentation page, removing ambiguity with article/procedure tools. Operation class: Read reinforces the read-only nature.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use hudu_list_websites first if you only know a name — ids are not guessable, and Hudu answers 404 identically for a missing record and an unrouted path.' This tells the agent exactly when to prefer the list tool and warns against id guessing. No other when-not-to-use is needed for a simple get operation.

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