Add Monitored URL

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

With readOnlyHint=false indicating a mutation, the description adds useful behavioral context: the URL will be re-audited on a schedule and alerts on regressions will be sent. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent insight into the tool's ongoing effect.

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 that earn their place: the first states the core operation, the second explains the scheduling and alerts. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple add operation with a well-documented schema and readOnly annotation, the description adequately explains the purpose and the ongoing behavior. It lacks only minor details like duplicate handling, but these are not essential for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates the concept of adding a URL.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a URL to SEO monitoring.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_monitored_urls or remove_monitored_url, and adds value by noting the scheduled re-audits and regression alerts, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to start monitoring a URL. It differentiates from one-time audit tools like seo_audit by mentioning ongoing schedule and alerts. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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