seo_list_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that both draft and published items are included, and it notes this mirrors the dashboard Results tab, adding context about the tool's provenance and scope. It does not cover all behavioral traits (e.g., sorting, performance), but for a list operation, this is adequate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adds scope and a usage preference. Every sentence contributes value: what it lists, statuses included, and a recommendation. No redundancy or filler.

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 is quite complete for a list tool with no output schema: it states what is included, the filter mechanism, and the canonical status. It does not explain how it relates to sibling list tools like seo_list_briefs or list_side_pages in detail, but the 'prefer it over' guidance partially covers this. Given the schema richness, the description suffices for safe use.

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 100% as all six parameters have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-related note is 'Use kind to filter,' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not enrich the understanding of limit, cursor, detail, or status beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource ('Generated Results'), scope (blog articles + side pages + comparisons), and distinguishes it from alternatives by declaring it the 'canonical' list and explicitly telling users to prefer it over reconstructing results from briefs. The verb 'List' is specific and the resource is precisely named.

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 clear context: use this to see generated content, including both drafts and published, and it directs users to prefer this tool over reconstructing results from briefs. It also tells users to use 'kind' to filter. It lacks explicit exclusions for when not to use it (e.g., when you need a single blog article detail), but the guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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