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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format (prints in chat with specific text) but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only or mutation operation, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description implies a generative action but doesn't clarify if it's a simulation or actual website creation.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core function in the first sentence and detailing the output format in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (generative action with 2 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks completeness in behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed parameter insights, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (name and description). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 purpose: 'Generates website for business' with specific inputs (business name and description) and output format. It distinguishes the action (generate) and resource (website), but since there are no sibling tools, it cannot differentiate from alternatives, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or limitations. It simply states what the tool does without context for usage decisions, resulting in minimal guidance.

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