webmaster_get_owners

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is redundant and earns no credit. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior on unverified hosts, which is a gap for an openWorld API tool.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the return fields in parentheses. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the surrounding gaps.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing is routing context versus sibling tools like webmaster_get_verification and any prerequisite on host verification; the definition is minimally viable but not complete.

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 0% for the single host_id parameter, so the description must compensate. Phrasing it as 'owners of a Webmaster host' implies host_id is a host identifier, but no format or sourcing guidance is given; host_id is nearly self-evident, so this lands at adequate rather than poor.

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 resource (verified owners of a Webmaster host) and even enumerates the returned fields (login, verification type/date). It is clear what the tool fetches, though it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as webmaster_get_verification.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, what prerequisites exist (host must be verified/added), or which sibling to prefer for adjacent data. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the crowded webmaster_* list.

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