listWebsites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it lists the returned health dimensions, explains the websiteId overload, and clarifies the durable-object relationship across repeated audits. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the core listing purpose, then the websiteId detail, then the sibling-tool relationship. Every sentence earns its place and the structure makes important scoping information immediately visible.

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 7 parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations already present, the description covers the essential semantics: what is returned, how the websiteId overload behaves, and how the tool relates to nearby sibling tools. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 71%, and most parameters already have descriptive entries. The description reinforces websiteId's special behavior but does not add meaning for q, sort, limit, health, offset, or monitoring beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States the specific operation ('List the websites this organization has audited') and details the output fields, making the resource and scope unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from listSiteAudits by defining a website as the durable object behind repeated audits and referencing sibling tools that operate on its ID.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: passing websiteId returns a single website in detail instead of the list, and it explicitly names getMonitoringSchedule and listSiteAudits as the tools to use with that ID. It does not explicitly state when listWebsites should not be used, but the routing guidance is strong enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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