Show Website

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the read returns (permission level, verification and ownership state), which matters since there is no output schema; it does not state error behavior for inaccessible or unverified properties.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with zero filler, and the returned-fields list comes first. It is efficient but slightly terse, reading more like a field inventory than a full definition.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential question of what data comes back. Remaining gaps (failure modes, prerequisites) are minor for a tool this simple.

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% and the site_url field already explains exact-URL format, domain-property semantics, and subdomain filtering. The description adds nothing beyond 'one property', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('one property') and enumerates the returned data: permission level, verification, and ownership details. That distinguishes it from the list-oriented sibling wsp_list_websites_gsc by emphasizing single-property scope, though the verb is only implied by the title.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for one property', which suggests calling this after discovering a property URL, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. An agent must infer that wsp_list_websites_gsc is the prerequisite discovery step, even though the schema hint mentions it.

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