Get Horizons Website

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only restates the purpose. It does not disclose whether the operation has side effects, requires specific permissions, returns particular data fields, or handles errors. The read-only implication of 'Get' is not enough to cover behavioral transparency.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, though it is slightly redundant with the title 'Get Horizons Website'.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation, the description fails to explain what 'details' are returned, what format they take, or any relevant caveats. For a get operation, users need to know what to expect in the response, and this information is absent.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter website_id, which is self-explanatory. The description adds no additional context beyond the schema, 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 'Get details of a Horizons website' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Horizons website'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like horizons_create_website (create) and hosting_websites_list (list). It communicates exactly what the tool does.

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 such as agency_website_get or hosting_websites_list. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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