Add a site to the account

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

Annotations already flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds real value on top: the site receives the full widget for 30 days plus a first scan, the call returns site id and plan tier, and an account is required (with AgentID self-signup). It omits what happens on duplicate domains, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then outcome, then next steps. The quoted 'Sign in with AgentID' phrasing is slightly clunky but the prerequisite is still clear.

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, the description responsibly states the return values (site id and plan tier) and covers the prerequisite and follow-on tools. Only the duplicate-site behavior is missing for a non-idempotent creation tool.

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 100% for the single url parameter and already documents the 'one domain per site' rule with an example. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, 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') and scopes it against siblings like list_sites and scan_page, which are read/inspect operations. An agent can tell immediately that this is the creation step of the workflow.

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?

Gives explicit ordering: after adding, use get_install_snippet for the tag and create_upgrade_link for the Pro plan, and states the prerequisite of a free account. It never says when NOT to use it (e.g., site already exists), so it stops short of 5.

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