List Ghost pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds a modest amount of context ('bounded' implies a paginated/limited result, and it names the ID and updated_at values returned), but does not detail rate limits, pagination behavior, or total counts.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and the payoff (IDs and timestamps) front-loaded. It is not padded, though it is arguably too short given the 9-parameter surface it should document.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is fairly excused, but with 9 undocumented optional parameters and no usage context, the description is too thin for a filter-heavy list operation. It gives an agent no basis for choosing filters or understanding result bounds.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. It mentions nothing about limit/page pagination, the four order options, the status enum, search, or the four date-range filters, leaving every filter's semantics to the bare schema.

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 (Ghost page records) and adds a workflow motivation (obtain exact IDs plus updated_at values). This clearly separates it from mutation siblings like publish_pages or create_page_drafts, though it does not explicitly contrast with the parallel read tool list_posts, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'obtain exact IDs plus updated_at values' gestures at a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g. list_posts vs list_pages, or get_page for a single record). An agent must infer the context from the name alone.

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