webmaster_list_search_urls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that one page is only a sample, not the full index, which is non-obvious. It does not mention ordering, consistency, or other behavioral details, though for a read-only listing operation the main caveat is covered.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both the action and the caveat earn their place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

With three parameters, no annotations, and a large sibling list, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It omits what host_id refers to, how pagination parameters behave, and when to prefer this tool over related webmaster tools; the output schema does not fill those gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain host_id, limit, or offset. The phrase 'one page' weakly hints at pagination semantics, but it does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter-level guidance.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Read one page of URLs in search.' The caveat that a sample is not the full index clarifies scope, but it does not explicitly contrast any sibling tool, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. The pagination caveat implies this tool is for reading individual pages, but an agent must infer how it fits among the many sibling webmaster tools.

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