List a team's websites

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the exact return shape, case-insensitive search behavior, and the difference between markdown and JSON response formats. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 well-organized and compact, with a clear one-line summary followed by concise Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though the Args block somewhat duplicates the input schema's parameter descriptions.

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-only listing tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: required team_id, optional search behavior, response_format options, and the exact JSON return shape. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their constraints. The description restates the parameter meanings but does not meaningfully enrich them beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List every website belonging to a team.' This clearly communicates both the action and the scope, and distinguishes it from broader tools like umami_list_websites or single-website tools like umami_get_website.

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 clearly implies the intended use case: fetch team-scoped websites, optionally filtered by a case-insensitive search term. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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