Get website details

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by naming the categories of information returned (configuration, status, metadata, hosting plan details, resource quotas), but it does not disclose potential error conditions, authorization needs, or whether the response is paginated or complete.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, the target resource, and the scope of returned data without redundancy. Every phrase contributes useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and no nested objects, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource type and the categories of details returned. It could be slightly more complete by pointing to the list endpoint for discovering website_uid or by clarifying how this differs from getWebsiteSetupStatusV1, but these gaps are minor given the simplicity of the operation.

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%, with the single required parameter website_uid documented as 'Agency Plan website UID'. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, such as how to obtain the UID or expected format, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the operation ('Retrieves detailed information') and the specific resource ('a specific Agency Plan website'), and enumerates what is included (configuration, status, metadata, hosting plan details, resource quotas). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like agency-hosting_getWebsiteSetupStatusV1 or agency-hosting_listAgencyPlanWebsitesV1.

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 phrase 'a specific Agency Plan website' implies this is for single-website detail lookups rather than listing or status-only checks, but the description does not state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisite steps such as first obtaining the website_uid from a list endpoint.

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