Monitoring status summary

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

The description supplements the readOnlyHint annotation by adding auth/payment requirements (Website Auditor subscription, trial details, payment method needed) and the precise return structure. It also discloses the fallback behavior for users without a subscription, which goes beyond the annotation's basic safety cue.

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?

Every sentence carries necessary information: purpose, trigger phrasings, return content, and subscription handling. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses a clear flow, being sufficiently concise for the content it conveys.

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 and empty params, the description fully covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and the subscription prerequisite. It also includes the fallback to get_sample_audit, making the description complete for both subscribers and non-subscribers.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain in the schema. The description still adds the scope of the operation ('across all tracked websites'), which clarifies that no filtering is possible. This meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a glanceable summary of monitoring status across all tracked websites.' It further clarifies the output (per-domain AI visibility, last audit, next run, recent change) and differentiates from siblings like get_ai_visibility by emphasizing the 'all tracked websites' scope.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this when someone asks...' with concrete example phrasings, and gives a clear alternative for non-subscribers: 'call get_sample_audit first.' This tells exactly when to use this tool and what to do instead, covering both prerequisites and fallback.

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