get_website_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no default time window when start_time/end_time are omitted, no indication of volume/pagination, and no hint about what a 'checkpoint' is in relation to the website.

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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than polish.

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 an open-world read tool keyed on a required checkpoint_id, the description should at minimum explain the website/checkpoint relationship and default time behavior. Neither is present, leaving the agent under-informed for anything beyond the simplest call.

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 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema already, and the description adds no extra semantics (e.g., whether the time range is inclusive or what happens if omitted). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 and resource ('Get synthetic check data for a website'), which implicitly distinguishes it from get_website (config) and get_websites (list). However, 'synthetic check data' is left unqualified – an agent cannot tell whether this returns availability results, response timings, or raw check records, and no sibling is named.

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 prefer this over get_website, get_graph_data, or calculate_availability, and no mention that both website_id and checkpoint_id are mandatory. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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