List status pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the return payload (id, name, subdomain, custom domain, overall status), which matters because there is no output schema; it stops short of describing pagination behavior or access scoping.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical field list is the only extra content and it earns its place given the absent output schema. Slightly terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 listing tool with annotations covering safety and a schema covering both parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. The one gap is any mention of pagination or result limits, which an agent calling with defaults might want to know.

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?

Both parameters (page, per_page) are fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no pagination guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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 (the user's Instatus status pages) and enumerates the fields returned. The resource is clearly distinct from sibling list tools (list_components, list_incidents, list_maintenances), though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for enumerating the account's status pages. There is no statement of when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note that it returns the pages the authenticated user owns or can access.

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