hosting_listWebsiteRedirectsV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions pagination, implying that page and per_page parameters control result sets, and it identifies the resource as redirects. However, it does not describe error handling, authentication requirements, or any side effects (though none expected for a read operation), so transparency is only partial.

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 a single, concise sentence with no superfluous details. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource, achieving high conciseness.

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 lacks an output schema and does not mention return format or error scenarios. It implies that 'selected website' is identified by username and domain, but this is not explicit. For a simple listing endpoint, it is reasonably complete but could benefit from clarifying the website selection context and expected response.

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 provides minimal descriptions for all four parameters ('Page number', 'Domain name', 'Number of items per page', 'username parameter'). The tool description adds context about pagination but does not clarify the role of username and domain in identifying the website or how they interact. Given that schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description contributes marginal additional meaning.

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 tool's function: returning a paginated list of redirects for a website. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('redirects'), which distinguishes it from other hosting operations like listing subdomains or databases. However, it lacks explicit mention of how it differs from similar listing tools in the same domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing other website resources. The description does not specify scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the contextual usage ambiguous for the agent.

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