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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying the scope ('standalone landing pages') and the exact fields returned (publish status, edit URL, live custom domain if connected). The 'if connected' caveat adds nuance about optional fields. This goes beyond simply echoing the read-only nature, though it doesn't discuss errors, rate limits, or ordering. With annotation coverage high, this is sufficient credit.

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, grammatically complete sentence of 22 words. It front-loads the verb, clearly states the object and scope, and lists the key output attributes without any wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it a model of conciseness and effective structure.

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 read-only list operation with zero required parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what is listed, the scope, and the included fields. It leverages the annotations (readOnlyHint) and schema for additional details. The only minor omission is clarity on multi-workspace behavior, but that is already addressed thoroughly in the schema's description of workspace_id. Thus, the description is effectively complete for its context.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both 'limit' and 'workspace_id', achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema offers. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting and no compensation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('standalone landing pages') and scope ('in the workspace'), and even enumerates returned fields (publish status, edit URL, custom domain). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_page/edit_page and get_page, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, fitting a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_page or list_sites. It doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or contrasts with other tools. The only implicit hint is the verb 'List', which is not enough to guide an agent in choosing among siblings. There is no 'when to use' or 'instead of' language.

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