Get the website features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by specifying the exact output shape — 'Shows current values, which features the plan allows, and the plan each locked feature needs' — and by noting the optional parameter behavior ('Omit to use the account's primary website'), which is a useful behavioral nuance not present in the 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, and the subsequent feature enumeration is information-dense with no filler or redundancy. The list of twelve features is long, but each item is meaningful for disambiguating scope from sibling tools. The closing sentence about output contents is compact and adds necessary detail without padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly assumes the burden of explaining what the read returns — current values, plan allowances, and the plan required for each locked feature, which is sufficient for a read-only tool. The single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no side effects) means nothing critical is missing. A small gap is the absence of an explicit note about error behavior when given an invalid website_id, but this is minor for a read-only lookup.

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 sole parameter website_id has a thorough schema description — numeric type, provenance ('from list_websites'), and default behavior ('Omit to use the account's primary website') — giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, but the schema is already self-sufficient, so the baseline for a fully covered parameter is met.

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 precise verb-resource pair — 'Read the plan-gated features for one website' — and then enumerates the full feature set (Real-Time Data Feed, Product Cards, etc.), which leaves no ambiguity about what this tool retrieves. The contrast with siblings like get_website, get_widget_settings, and update_website_features is implicit but clear, since the feature list uniquely scopes this tool to plan-gated feature readout.

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 does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_website or get_widget_settings. The feature enumeration implies a distinct scope, and the parameter hint 'from list_websites' points to a workflow step, but there is no explicit guidance like 'use this to inspect plan-gated entitlements; use get_website for general site info.' The guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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