List URL Forwards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by enumerating what each returned entry contains and calling out a subtle behavioral detail (302 vs 307 disambiguation), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the field enumeration. The field list is somewhat dense but earns its place because there is no output schema to document the return shape.

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 annotations carrying the safety profile and a fully documented single parameter, the description is nearly complete: it explains the returned fields, which no output schema provides. It stops short of stating ordering or handling of empty results, a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, and the description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('List all URL forwarding rules configured for a domain') and explicitly scopes it to a single domain's forwarding rules, distinguishing it from siblings like create_url_forward/delete_url_forward by naming delete_url_forward as the consumer of the returned id.

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?

Usage is implied (call this to enumerate rules before deleting one, since it mentions the id is used by delete_url_forward), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or comparison to alternatives beyond that incidental link.

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