List landing pages

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read only' opening is redundant, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: metrics are scoped to the last 30 days, and the state enum is expanded with plain-language meanings (over_plan = published but offline due to plan limits, ended = past liveUntil). Those semantics are not recoverable from the schema or annotations.

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?

Everything stated is substantive, but the payload is delivered as one very long run-on sentence that mixes three different concerns (page list, workspace address, plan limits, available signup forms and looks). Front-loading 'Read only' is good; the lack of sentence boundaries makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly, including the state vocabulary and the ancillary objects (workspace address, plan allowance, signup forms, looks). The only gaps are pagination totals and failure behavior when landing pages are disabled, both minor.

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% — limit (default 25, max 50) and offset (chained from nextOffset) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about pagination or parameter behavior, 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?

The description names the resource precisely (the workspace's link in bio page and landing pages on postfjord.page) and enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent can distinguish it from postfjord_get_page (single page) and postfjord_create_page. The action verb itself is only implied by the title/name rather than stated in the description body, which keeps it from 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?

It states a real precondition — 'Landing pages must be switched on for the workspace' — which tells the agent when this tool will fail. But it never routes the agent to alternatives (get_page for one page, list_signup_forms for the referenced forms) or states when not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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