Get Seo Urls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't say whether the result is paginated, whether an empty query_pattern returns everything, or what permissions are needed. The single sentence gives no behavioral context at all.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the filter example. Efficient and without waste, though terse to the point of under-specification.

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 retrieval tool with an undocumented parameter, no annotations, and only a hint at output shape (output schema exists, so return values need not be described), the description is too thin. It leaves the agent guessing about matching semantics, empty-parameter behavior, and result ordering.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only offers a single example pattern. It doesn't explain the matching semantics (LIKE, prefix, exact?), the meaning of the empty-string default, or valid pattern syntax. One short example is insufficient for a 0%-coverage parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (SEO URL mappings), and the sibling set makes the resource distinguishable from update_seo_url. However, it doesn't explain what an 'SEO URL mapping' contains or why an agent would fetch one, so it falls short of a 5.

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 example pattern ('product_id=%') hints at a filtered retrieval scenario, implicitly suggesting use when you need URLs matching a pattern. But there is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, and the exclusion of update_seo_url (the write sibling) is only inferable from the name.

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