List monitored sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context such as the required Website Auditor subscription, free trial terms, and payment details. It also specifies what the return includes (cadence, active state, slots), going beyond the basic read-only annotation. No contradiction with 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It then adds concise usage examples, return details, and subscription constraints, with every sentence contributing value and no unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, prerequisites (subscription), fallback behavior, and output structure, providing a complete picture. Given the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, this is fully sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubrics. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it enriches understanding by describing the output fields and slot limitations, which is sufficient for this 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 clearly states the tool lists websites currently monitored for AI visibility, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on tracked domains, cadence, active state, and slot usage.

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?

It explicitly provides trigger phrases ('what am I tracking,' 'which sites am I monitoring') for when to use this tool. It also gives an alternative action (call get_sample_audit) when the user lacks the required subscription, offering clear decision guidance.

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