agency-hosting_listWebsiteCronJobsV1

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the result is paginated and describes the content of each entry (schedule expression and command), adding useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention error cases, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which are common for read operations. No contradictions with any annotations exist.

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 sentences long, with the primary action stated first ('Returns a paginated list...') and no redundant information. Every sentence adds value—scope and output content—without wasting words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides enough context for a simple list operation: it states the purpose, scope (Agency Plan website), pagination, and the key fields in each entry. It does not specify pagination details like page size defaults or total count, but these are typically handled by API conventions and are not critical for agent selection. The description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for page, per_page, and website_uid. The description does not add additional meaning to these parameters beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it. The mention of pagination aligns with schema but is not new information.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a paginated list of cron jobs configured for an Agency Plan website, using the specific verb 'returns' and resource 'cron jobs'. It distinguishes itself from account-level cron job tools (e.g., hosting_listAccountCronJobsV1) by explicitly scoping to a website, and mentions that entries include schedule expression and command.

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 (list cron jobs for a specific website) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It does not contrast with tools like hosting_listAccountCronJobsV1 or hosting_listWebsiteCronJobsV1 (if exists), leaving the choice to the agent based on the website_uid parameter. No exclusions or fallback guidance are provided.

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