Get website list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the complete list is returned in a single response and is not paginated, which is useful for an agent deciding whether to loop or expect all results at once. It also clarifies the scope ('user owns') and the return fields.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: what it lists, when to use it, what each item contains, and the non-pagination guarantee. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 parameterless read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, return fields, and pagination behavior. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the sibling list shows clear differentiation from horizons_getWebsiteV1 and hosting_listWebsitesV1.

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, so there is no schema to compensate for. The description adds meaning by explaining what the response contains (ID, status, domain, URL) and the non-paginated nature, which is the only semantic content an agent needs for a parameterless list call.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Hostinger Horizons websites the user owns'), and explicitly notes the returned fields (ID, status, domain, URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like horizons_getWebsiteV1 (single website) and hosting_listWebsitesV1 (different hosting product) by scoping to Horizons websites.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'when the user asks which websites they have, or when you need a website ID before editing, publishing or cloning a website.' This provides clear context and routes the agent to the tool for ID retrieval before other operations.

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