List website cron jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context about pagination and the content of entries (schedule expression and command), which goes beyond the annotations. Since the read-only nature is covered, the description contributes meaningful extra transparency.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence clarifies the response contents. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 read-only list tool with a simple required parameter and two optional pagination parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is returned (schedule and command) and mentions pagination. It does not describe error conditions or the full response structure, but given no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward, these omissions are minor.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (website_uid, page, per_page). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning pagination, which is already implied by the schema's page/per_page fields. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; no added value beyond that.

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 verb ('Returns') and the resource ('paginated list of cron jobs configured for an Agency Plan website'). It differentiates from siblings like hosting_listAccountCronJobsV1 by scoping to a website and specifying the plan type, and mentions that each entry includes schedule and command, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'Agency Plan website', which implicitly distinguishes it from account-level cron jobs (hosting_listAccountCronJobsV1) and website create/delete operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative listing tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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