Lister les pages

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). The description adds value by specifying the returned data includes SEO fields and performance indicators (clicks, impressions, indexing, internal links). It also exposes the endpoint, but doesn't discuss pagination behavior, default limits, or response structure beyond those hints. Since annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate – description supplements but doesn't fully elaborate behavioral traits.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Lister les pages') then specifies the returned content. The HTTP endpoint is included but doesn't bloat it. Every element earns its place; it's efficient and scannable.

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?

Given the tool is a list operation with 11 parameters fully documented in the schema, and the description adds response field context, it's fairly complete. It doesn't explain return format beyond field hints, but that's minor since output schema is absent and the schema covers all inputs. The lack of any mention of filtering or pagination defaults is compensated by the schema descriptions. A 4 reflects that it's nearly complete but could hint at typical usage patterns.

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 every parameter (q, cpt, page, sort, type, limit, siteId, status, indexed, eligible, category_id) already has a description. The tool description adds minimal parameter context beyond mentioning the SEO fields that align with sort options. Baseline 3 is correct when schema fully documents parameters.

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 lists pages of a site with SEO fields and indicators (clicks, impressions, indexing, internal links). It identifies the resource (pages) and the action (list), distinguishing it from sibling tools like listSites or listCategories. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it loses one point for lack of explicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer listArchives for content types or listSites for site-level data. The HTTP path (GET /sites/{siteId}/pages) is given but no context on selection criteria.

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