List Indexed Pages

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining date-range derivation logic: if one boundary is omitted, the server derives the other to form an inclusive 30-day range, and generated end dates are capped at the latest complete date. This goes beyond the annotations and helps agents set expectations correctly.

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 two sentences with no redundant filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently communicates key behavioral nuance. Every clause earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has a moderate complexity with four parameters and a full output schema, and the description covers its core purpose and date behavior. The schema handles parameter details and return values, so the description doesn't need to restate them. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage alternatives, but this is not critical for executing the tool correctly given the rich schema and annotations.

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% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's date-derivation explanation partially overlaps with schema text, but it adds the phrase 'inclusive 30-day range,' which clarifies the interaction between start_date and end_date. Overall, the description does not need to compensate for missing schema info, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Retrieve a list of site pages that have received search impressions.' It also adds the important nuance of serving as a 'proxy list of indexed pages,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sitemaps.list or urls.inspect. Even without naming siblings, the purpose is explicit and unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied through the description of what the tool returns (pages with impressions as a proxy for indexed pages), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as sitemaps.list or analytics.query. No when-not-to-use conditions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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