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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description usefully adds what each result carries (publish status, edit URL, live custom domain). It does not cover ordering, pagination beyond the schema's limit, or what 'standalone' excludes, so the added behavioral value is moderate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope first and the return payload second — no filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema, readOnly annotations, and fully documented params, the description covers what an agent needs to call it. The only gap is the undefined scope of 'standalone' (whether site-attached pages are excluded), which could affect result expectations.

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%, including the workspace_id fallback behavior, so the description need not restate parameters. It adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when structured fields are complete.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the standalone landing pages in the workspace') and enumerates the returned fields, which lets an agent separate it from get_page or list_sites. It stops short of explicitly stating the boundary with sibling listing tools, so it lands at a strong 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery call before get_page/edit_page, but nothing states when to prefer it over list_sites or get_page. No exclusions or prerequisites are given beyond the workspace_id note that lives in the schema.

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