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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and describes row contents, but says nothing about ordering, total-count metadata, or behavior when filters match nothing — small additions over the annotations rather than rich behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences, the pagination trait front-loaded, and the parenthetical enumeration of type values integrated without waste. Nothing that could be trimmed.

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 some burden for describing returns; it names type and language but omits the landing's identity fields (id/name/url) and pagination metadata, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the response shape. Adequate for a simple filtered list, but not complete.

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 only 60% (page, per_page and search are documented; type and status enums are bare), and the description usefully disambiguates the 'generated' enum value as AI-generated content carrying a generation status. It also flags that language is part of each row, though it never explains the active/paused 'status' filter, leaving one gap.

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 verb and resource ('List landings') plus pagination, so the agent knows this is a paginated read of the landing collection. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_landing or create_landing, but the list/create/get split is clear from the name and the description's row-oriented framing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_landing, search, or the other list_* siblings, and no mention of filter combinations or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the title and the word 'List'.

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