List pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose the returned fields ('status and title') and that results are filterable, which is genuine behavioral content; however it omits pagination behavior, ordering, and confirmation that this is a safe read-only operation.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and return content before the optional filters. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, return content, and filter dimensions. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination/ordering behavior and explicit read-only framing.

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%, so all four parameters (limit, status, indexable, urlContains) are already documented in the schema. The description's filter summary mirrors the schema without adding format or syntax detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List crawled pages with status and title' tells the agent exactly what is returned. It distinguishes itself from get_page (single page) and list_broken_links by naming the resource, though it does not explicitly position itself against those siblings.

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?

'optionally filtered by status code, indexability, or a URL substring' implies when the tool is useful (filtered enumeration of crawled pages), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as get_page for a specific URL. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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