list_inspected_urls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the relevant operational traits: filtering, sorting, paging and CSV export. It does not say what export_csv actually returns (raw CSV text vs. a file path), how paging interacts with offset/limit, or any limits on heavy queries, so it adds moderate but not rich context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the capability set with no filler. Its terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a 15-parameter tool.

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?

There is no output schema, 15 parameters at 47% coverage, and the description does not explain the returned record shape (URL, coverage state, rich results, optional performance metrics), the effect of with_performance_days, or CSV export mechanics. For a tool of this complexity the description is materially incomplete.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 47% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden, yet it only gestures at 'filtering, sorting, paging and CSV export.' Undocumented parameters such as url_regex, url_contains, descending, has_rich_issues, and the semantics of export_csv vs. limit/offset receive no explanation, so the agent must guess behavior from bare titles.

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+resource: a URL-level listing of stored inspection data, with filter/sort/page/export capabilities. That is enough to separate it from inspect_url or diagnose_url, which perform new inspections rather than list stored results, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'stored inspections' implies this reads previously collected data rather than running new audits, and the filter/sort/export list implies analytic drill-down. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against siblings like indexing_report, crawl_stats, or inspect_url, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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