get_website

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already convey that this is a safe, non-mutating read operation. The description adds little beyond that, but it does not contradict the annotations. Since annotations are present, the bar is lower, and the description's limited behavioral detail is acceptable.

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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient and clear without unnecessary words. It could be slightly more detailed, but it earns a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, annotations provided, and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it does not specify what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., properties, status, group), which might be important for an agent to anticipate the response. Since descriptions need to add value beyond structured data, a bit more detail on the nature of the returned details would improve completeness.

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 provides full coverage (100%) for the only parameter 'website_id' with a simple description 'Website ID'. The description of the tool does not add additional semantics for the parameter, but the schema is sufficient. With high schema coverage, baseline of 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 'Get detailed information about a specific website' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('website'), and specifies that it returns detailed information. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_websites' (which likely lists websites) and 'get_website_data' (which likely returns metrics). However, it could be more explicit about what 'detailed information' includes.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_websites' or 'get_website_data'. However, the name itself and the context of being a singular 'get' tool implies it is for fetching a single website by ID. Sibling names provide some differentiation, but no explicit guidance is given.

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