List website processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing statuses (running, completed, failed) and the intended polling pattern after async operations, which helps the agent understand expected behavior beyond the structured 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential details about process fields and polling usage. Every sentence contributes value with no wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main points: what is listed, what fields are included, and when to poll. It does not specify response formatting or pagination, but given the simplicity and the lack of an output schema, the description is reasonably 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 100%, and the only parameter, website_uid, is documented as 'Agency Plan website UID'. The description does not add much beyond the schema, but it reinforces the Agency Plan scope. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Lists active and recently completed asynchronous processes for an Agency Plan website', naming a specific verb and resource. It also explains what information each process exposes (ID, type, status) and distinguishes this poll/status tool from other list tools by focusing on async process tracking.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Poll this endpoint after initiating async operations (SSL setup, backups, cloning) to track progress.' It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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