ywm_get_important_urls

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens if required configuration is missing (e.g., YANDEX_WEBMASTER_HOST_URL).

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, which is concise but overly brief; it lacks detail and does not front-load key information about scope or behavior.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, what constitutes an 'issue', or how results are structured. More context is needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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%—each parameter (limit, offset, host_id) already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating the purpose, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 states 'Get important URLs with issues', which specifies a verb and resource, but 'important URLs with issues' is vague—it does not define what qualifies as 'important' or what 'issues' entail (e.g., errors, warnings, accessibility problems). Compared to siblings like ywm_get_broken_internal_links, this tool's purpose is unclear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ywm_get_search_urls or ywm_get_important_urls_history. There is no context for preferred use cases or exclusions.

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