Add a site to the account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the 30-day full-widget trial, the included first scan, the returned site id and plan tier, and the authentication path (agent can self-register via 'Sign in with AgentID'). It does not explicitly state non-idempotency or duplicate-domain behavior, so it is not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by side effects, return values, and next steps in a compact block. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing instructions are slightly dense and could be split more cleanly.

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 one-parameter creation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: prerequisites, side effects, and return contents (no output schema exists). Error conditions and rate limits are not covered, which keeps it below 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including an example URL and the 'one domain per site' constraint. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Add a website to the signed-in WebAbility account'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_sites, scan_page, or get_install_snippet. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 clear workflow context by naming successors ('put the get_install_snippet tag on the site', 'use create_upgrade_link'), which effectively tells the agent where this tool sits in a sequence. It states the prerequisite (a free WebAbility account) but never says when NOT to use it, so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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