list_landing_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the default detail level ('short') and the fields included ('id/slug/name/status'), and points to view_landing_page for full content. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, how results are paginated/ordered, or any other behavioral traits beyond the schema's already-detailed enum descriptions.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary action; the second provides default behavior and an alternative. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 read-only list tool with only two optional parameters and fully descriptive schemas, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the default detail level, and how to get full content. It does not mention pagination or that it lists all pages, but given the simplicity and schema richness, it is largely complete. A small gap is the lack of explicit scope (e.g., 'all landing pages' vs. filtered by brand), but brandId defaults are described in the schema.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already thoroughly explains both 'detail' and 'brandId'. The description adds a small convenience by paraphrasing what 'short' includes ('id/slug/name/status'), but this is largely redundant with the schema's own enum description. It does not introduce new meaning for either parameter.

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 the tool's function as 'Lists landing pages', naming the specific resource (landing pages) and the action (list). It differentiates from the sibling tool 'view_landing_page' by directing users there for full content, making its own purpose distinct as a list operation.

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 description gives concrete usage guidance: 'Default detail="short"' indicates typical invocation, and 'Use view_landing_page for full content' explicitly names an alternative for a different need. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., when not to use) but provides sufficient context for choosing between listing and viewing.

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