search_by_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-access profile are covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — filters in the URL are preserved — but says nothing about pagination (limit/max_pages), row compaction, or failure behavior on malformed URLs.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. No redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 explained, and annotations cover the read/open-world profile. Still missing are pagination semantics for limit and max_pages and any hint about how URL-embedded filters interact with those caps, which matters for a 4-parameter 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 description coverage is 50%: url and full are documented, while limit and max_pages have no descriptions anywhere. 'Keeping all its filters' reinforces what the url parameter does, but the description does not compensate for the two undocumented pagination parameters.

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 (fetch) and resource (results for a list.am search URL) and adds the key qualifier 'keeping all its filters', so an agent understands this replays a saved URL rather than building a new query. It does not name search_listings as the alternative, but the URL-driven distinction is evident.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'an existing list.am search URL' tells the agent it needs a ready-made URL, which implies this is for replaying a search rather than constructing one. It never states when to prefer this over search_listings or get_listings, nor what happens without a valid list.am URL.

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