list_website_shares

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses nothing about behavior: no indication of result ordering, whether listing is paginated, permission requirements, or what a share record contains. The presence of page/pageSize parameters implies pagination but the description never confirms or explains it.

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 with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though the terseness contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and four undocumented parameters — an agent cannot tell whether results are paginated, what fields a share has, or how 'search' filters. For a listing tool with this much undocumented surface, the description is substantially incomplete.

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 0% across four parameters; the description only hints that websiteId scopes the result and says nothing about page, pageSize, or search. Filters like 'search' are left entirely undefined, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (shares) with a scope qualifier ('created for a website'), so an agent knows this is a website-scoped share listing. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as list_entity_shares or get_share, so it stops short of a 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_entity_shares, get_share, or the create_website_share/update_share siblings. The only implied condition is that a websiteId is required, which comes from the schema rather than the description.

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