List all verified websites in the directory, sorted by most recently updated.
Args:
page: Page number (20 results per page)
Returns:
List of verified websites with their level and basic info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses sorting order, pagination size ('20 results per page'), and return content (level and basic info), but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or that the operation is read-only. This is adequate but not fully transparent.
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: a one-sentence purpose, then an Args block and a Returns block. Every line adds useful information without filler, and the structure is easy to scan.
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 single-parameter listing tool with no output schema, this description provides enough context: the resource, sorting, pagination, and return shape. It could list specific fields, but that is not necessary for selecting or invoking the 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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It defines 'page' as a page number and notes '20 results per page,' adding real semantic value beyond the schema's bare integer type and default.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all verified websites in the directory') with an explicit sorting detail ('sorted by most recently updated'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_websites or get_website.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when a full paginated listing of verified websites is needed) and distinguishes it from search or single-website tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources (levels, queue, websites, verification) and actions. check_agent_friendliness and get_website both retrieve info about a specific site, but the former is a quick status check while the latter provides full criteria details, so they are distinguishable. No other overlapping tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get, list, search, submit, verify, check). The verbs clearly indicate the action, and nouns indicate the target. No mixed conventions or stylistic inconsistencies.
8 tools is well-scoped for a directory service with submission, verification, search, and listing capabilities. Each tool serves a distinct function without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range.
The tool set covers the core workflows: submit, verify, search, list, and check status. However, there are no update or delete operations for websites, which is a notable gap for managing directory entries. The absence of these operations could limit maintenance workflows.