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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful context by naming the underlying endpoint and the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or whether the listing is filtered by token scope (that constraint lives only in the schema).

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 sentences, zero filler, and the substantive content (what the tool lists and what comes back) is front-loaded before the endpoint reference. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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, listing the returned fields (company name, subdomain, aggregate_state, published) is genuinely valuable so the agent knows what to expect. Only the pagination semantics and token-scope caveat are under-explained for a three-parameter list tool.

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 100%, so page, per_page, and team_name are already fully documented. The description adds nothing about them, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting, but it misses the chance to clarify the global-token condition on team_name.

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 ('List') and resource ('status pages'), and even names the fields returned. The resource type alone separates it cleanly from every sibling (incidents, monitors, heartbeats, on-call), though no sibling is named 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 guidance on when to choose this over other list tools, no mention of pagination strategy, and no explanation of when team_name filtering applies beyond what the schema already says. The reader must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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