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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: a 90-day click window, latest completed crawl as the data source, and the caveat that findings store only up to 50 example URLs so a page can be affected without being listed. It does not cover auth or pagination, but meaningfully reduces ambiguity.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs only useful detail: verb and resource first, then returned fields, then a parenthetical caveat. No 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value information; it lists the page attributes returned and the finding-listing caveat well. It does not describe response structure or pagination metadata, leaving a small gap for a list endpoint.

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 site_id, limit, and the sort enum are already documented. The description helps interpret 'clicks' and 'open findings' for the sort options but adds no direct parameter syntax, limits, or defaults beyond what the schema provides.

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 'List' and resource 'pages of a website', then enumerates the data returned (Google clicks, crawl status, title, H1, meta, findings). It is clearly about pages rather than issues or site metrics, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The usage context is implied by the resource and returned fields: call it to list pages with click and open-finding context.

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