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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does contribute the access-scoping behavior and the shape of returned data, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or size limits for a potentially unbounded list.

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 short sentence with zero filler; the resource and its scope are front-loaded and everything stated earns its place.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, the scope of the listing, and the key fields returned. It stops short of noting pagination or result limits, which would matter for a potentially large collection.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning, and none is needed since the schema has no properties to document.

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?

States a specific resource (status pages) and a distinct scope — every page 'this key reaches' — plus what comes back (ids and addresses). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_page_access and list_subscribers, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'list'.

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 phrase 'this key reaches' hints that results are permission-scoped, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of any alternative tool (e.g. get_status or get_page_access) or when not to call it.

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