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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real context on top: a workspace-level prerequisite for the feature, the distinction between 'status' and 'state', the full meaning of each state value (changed, over_plan, scheduled, ended, taken_down), and the 30-day window for views and taps. The opening 'Read only' merely repeats the annotation, but the state semantics are information an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Everything after the redundant 'Read only' is substantive, but the whole thing is a single heavily nested sentence whose long parenthetical state enumeration is hard to parse at a glance. It would be stronger split into a short purpose line followed by the field/state glossary.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the returned fields, the aggregate context (workspace address, plan allowance, available looks), and the feature prerequisite. Only minor gaps remain, such as default ordering and whether pagination is the only way to page through results.

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% and both parameters (limit, offset) are fully documented in the schema, including the nextOffset pagination handoff, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about pagination behavior or defaults, which is acceptable given the schema already carries it.

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 the specific resource ('the workspace's link in bio page and landing pages on postfjord.page') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like postfjord_list_signup_forms or postfjord_list_media. The listing verb itself is only implied by the name rather than stated in the description, and the mention of 'the signup forms a page can use' could momentarily blur the line with postfjord_list_signup_forms, keeping it short of 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 only conditional guidance is the prerequisite 'Landing pages must be switched on for the workspace', which is genuinely useful. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g. create_page for the detail view, or list_signup_forms when the caller actually wants forms), so usage is implied rather than directed.

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