List a site's pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses a real behavioral caveat: 'A status comes from the last stored inspection,' i.e. values may be stale, and it clarifies what not_indexed aggregates. It does not mention pagination behavior or result caps, though the schema covers those.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: the returned fields come first, then the status caveat and the sibling pointer. The fragment style ('the last crawl and request') is slightly telegraphic and forces some inference, 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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, the meaning of the status filter, and the staleness caveat. Cursor/limit mechanics are left to the schema, which is acceptable; only a note on result ordering/capping would strengthen it.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents q, site, limit and cursor. The description adds meaning for q ('matches part of the URL', i.e. substring not exact) and for the status values, notably the composite not_indexed bucket. Baseline 3 applies given the schema does most of the work.

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 (a site's pages), what is returned (status, Google coverage state, last crawl and request), and the path ordering. The verb is only implied via the title, and there is no explicit scoping contrast with list_sites, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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 gives a concrete routing rule away from this tool: 'check_url has a single URL in full,' which tells the agent to use check_url for one-URL deep inspection. It also defines the not_indexed bucket so the agent knows what that filter selects. No when-not guidance against list_sites or list_indexing_requests is given.

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