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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific fields returned (publish status, edit URL, live custom domain), which is useful context. It doesn't mention pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key return fields. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only list tool with a rich output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, but the output schema likely covers that.

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%, so both parameters (limit and workspace_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists standalone landing pages in the workspace and specifies the exact fields returned (publish status, edit URL, live custom domain). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sites, list_redirects, and list_scripts, which target different resources.

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 implies this is the tool for listing landing pages, and the workspace_id parameter description provides clear guidance on when to omit it or pass it, including error behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_page or create_page, though the resource type is clear enough.

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