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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state side effects, authorization requirements, or data scope (e.g., whether archived or draft landings are included). The mention of metrics gives some output context but lacks behavioral depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core function.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits crucial information about the 'limit' parameter and does not describe return structure beyond the listed metrics. Given no output schema, the lack of parameter semantics makes the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 input schema defines a single 'limit' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not explain its purpose, default value, or effect. With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to clarify how to use the parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lista' (lists) and identifies the resource 'páginas de aterrizaje' (landing pages), while also specifying included metrics (visits, conversions, conversion rate). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools like list_campaigns or list_launches.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like create_landing or update_landing.

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