List Monitored URLs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns each URL's 'latest status and score,' which is useful. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or ordering. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate for the added 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. It states the action, resource, and returned data without any filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the user exactly what it does and what information is included (status and score). The readOnlyHint annotation provides safety context, and the tool's scope is fully covered.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds relevant context about what is returned, which is sufficient.

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 a specific action ('List all URLs') and the resource ('URLs you have under SEO monitoring'), and specifies what is included ('latest status and score'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_monitored_url/remove_monitored_url by focusing on listing, and from get_audit_results by focusing on monitored URLs rather than audit results.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to see all monitored URLs and their status/score. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3.

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