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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints, the description adds rich behavioral context: data provenance (join of Search Console history against audit crawl), the audit prerequisite, output characteristics (demand-ranked, conditional redirect suggestions), and a meaningful exclusion rule ('Pages that never ranked cannot appear here'). This substantially helps the agent predict what the tool will return and what conditions affect it.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the first front-loads the core purpose and sort behavior, the second adds the prerequisite and data source, the third clarifies an exclusion. No filler, repetition, or schema echo.

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 read-only, 2-param list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it conveys what is listed, the ordering, the conditional redirect suggestions, the prerequisite, and what cannot appear. The only gap is not stating what happens when no audit has run (empty result vs. error), which an agent might need to know to decide whether to trigger an audit first.

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 coverage is 50%: limit is well documented in the schema with min/max and default, but workspaceId has no schema description. The description does not compensate for the undocumented workspaceId param, though it follows a standard workspace-scoping pattern across the campaignstack suite. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides for limit.

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 pages that earned Google impressions over the retained history and now return 404 or 410.' It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling search_console tools (list_queries, get_demand, status) by focusing on dead pages with historical demand, and it even specifies sort order and the conditional redirect-suggestion feature.

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 provides clear context on prerequisites: 'Derived by joining Search Console page history against the latest SEO audit crawl, so an audit must have run.' This tells the agent when results will be available and implicitly points toward running seo_run_audit or checking seo_get_latest_report first. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use cases relative to specific siblings.

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