List monitored sites

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it discloses the subscription requirement, the exact returned data (domain, cadence, active state, slots used/remaining), and the fallback path when the user is not subscribed. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious context an agent needs.

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 purpose and use cases, then output, then subscription routing. The subscription explanation is a bit long with pricing and trial details, but it is relevant for deciding whether to call this tool or get_sample_audit. No filler is present, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the tool returns: each tracked domain with cadence and active state, plus slot counts out of 5. It also covers the subscription prerequisite and the fallback for non-subscribers. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. Per the baseline for a no-parameter tool, a 4 is appropriate; the description uses that freedom to explain output and access rather than parameter details.

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: 'List the websites currently being monitored for AI visibility on a schedule.' It also gives concrete user phrasings that should trigger this tool, making the purpose unmistakable. It clearly differentiates this list operation from other monitoring-related siblings by naming the exact output scope.

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 states when to use the tool with natural-language examples like 'what am I tracking' and 'how many monitoring slots am I using.' It also provides a conditional alternative: if the user lacks a Website Auditor subscription, call get_sample_audit first. This is clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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