Get an Umami website

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond confirming it is a read operation ('Get metadata'). It does not disclose any edge cases, permissions, or other traits not already captured by annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. While it could perhaps add slightly more context, it remains concise and to the point.

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 1 parameter (fully described in the schema), rich annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is adequate for a simple read tool. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. However, it could mention what specific metadata fields are returned to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'websiteId' is described as 'Umami UUID'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get metadata for one website.' It specifies the action (get) and the object (metadata for a single website), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_websites' (multiple websites) and 'resolve_website' (likely resolves a domain).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or any similar contextual rules. Sibling tools are listed but not referenced or differentiated beyond the single sentence. The agent receives no explicit usage context.

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