Monitoring status summary

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses an important behavioral condition: a Website Auditor subscription is required, including trial details and payment requirements. It also explains the fallback behavior to get_sample_audit for non-subscribers, which annotations could not convey.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then gives usage examples, return contents, and subscription caveats in a logical order. Every sentence adds necessary information for selecting and invoking the tool correctly; there is no filler.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully self-sufficient: it explains what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and what prerequisites or alternatives apply. The agent has enough information to call it correctly or route to get_sample_audit when needed.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description still clarifies the implicit scope—'across all tracked websites'—which is useful context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a glanceable summary of monitoring status across all tracked websites.' It clearly separates this from siblings like get_ai_visibility or get_changes by emphasizing the across-all-domains dashboard nature, listing return fields per domain.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when someone asks...' and gives concrete query examples. It also provides an alternative path: if the user lacks a subscription, call get_sample_audit first. This gives the agent clear routing logic.

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