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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those flags: results are limited to active pages, and password hashes/private URLs are deliberately omitted from the 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 a single sentence with no filler. Key qualifiers—active, public, owned by authenticated workspace, and excluded fields—are packed efficiently without repeating annotation information.

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?

This is a low-complexity, zero-parameter read operation with a full output schema and rich annotations. The description covers what is listed, whose pages are listed, and what sensitive data is excluded, so nothing essential is missing 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 is empty with 100% coverage, so the description has no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly focuses on output scope instead.

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 precise action and resource: listing active public pages owned by the authenticated workspace, and explicitly excludes password hashes and private URLs. This scope distinguishes it from siblings like list_shared_with_me and search_workspace.

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 clear usage context: it is appropriate for retrieving the authenticated workspace's own active public pages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the ownership and active-page scope make the intended use unambiguous.

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