wizard_discover_website

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses what information is extracted (brand, industry, hours, FAQs, products) but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., outbound network request), failure modes (e.g., unparseable websites), or rate limits. It adds some context beyond the schema but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: high-level goal, extraction details, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and where it fits in the onboarding workflow. It does not explain error handling or network assumptions, but these are not critical for basic use. Slightly more detail on failure modes would push it to a 5.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter, so the schema already fully documents it. The description mentions 'from a website' but adds no additional parameter constraints, format, or validation beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Discover business information from a website' and lists concrete extraction targets (brand name, industry, hours, FAQs, products). It also distinguishes itself from sibling wizard tools by positioning itself as the 'first step in automated onboarding.'

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 states 'Use this as the first step in automated onboarding,' providing clear usage context. It implies precedence over sibling wizard tools but does not include explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternative tool comparisons.

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