List websites

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavioral note that this tool provides the id used by other tools, which is beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or return format, but given the annotations cover the safety aspects, the description adds some value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action ('List the websites') is front-loaded, and the key usage advice ('Start here...') is included without clutter. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with no parameters, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (the id), and when to use it. The only missing detail might be pagination or response structure, but since there is no output schema to rely on, the description provides adequate context for this low-complexity 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is given for 0-parameter tools, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter info, so this score fits.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'websites (AI agents)' on the Asyntai account. It also adds the distinguishing detail that this tool returns the 'id every other tool takes', which separates it from siblings like get_website or create_website, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to start here: 'Start here when the account may have more than one.' This clearly indicates the condition for using this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative, though the context implies that if you already know the id you might go directly to get_website. This is a clear usage context without full exclusion logic.

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