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

Even with annotations marking readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: anonymous sessions return ok=true with an empty list and authRequired=true as a non-error state. This prevents a likely misinterpretation of the tool's response.

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 compact and information-dense. Every sentence earns its place: core purpose, anonymous behavior, and routing guidance are all included without unnecessary filler or repetition.

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?

The description is complete for this tool's complexity: one optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations already cover safety. It adds the crucial auth edge case and next-step alternatives, so an agent knows exactly when and how 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 only parameter, limit, is fully described in the schema with min/max and meaning, so the description does not need to add much. It provides no extra detail about limit behavior, but the schema already covers semantic coverage entirely at 100%.

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 landing pages claimed by the signed-in account.' It clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from related actions by noting that sign-in is needed to claim or manage pages, not to list them.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to call this tool and what to do instead: it explains the anonymous demo case, tells the agent not to treat authRequired=true as an error, and directs the agent to page_intake_start or page_create_from_brief when there are no saved pages.

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