List website content

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and the open-ended nature of results. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the scope ('public published') and the exact output fields (titles, URLs, dates, excerpts). This clarifies what results will look like without contradicting the 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?

A single sentence of five words plus a list of fields is efficient and front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no redundant phrasing or additional detail that detracts from clarity.

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 list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description combined with the annotations and full schema coverage provides everything an agent needs: the resource scope, the fields returned, and the safety profile. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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%, with each parameter (page, limit, contentType) having a clear description. The tool description adds nothing about parameters themselves; it only mentions the output fields. Per the rubric, with full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('public published pages or posts') and enumerates the returned fields (titles, URLs, dates, excerpts). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_content (single item) or search_content (query-based) without ambiguity.

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 does not mention scenarios where search_content or get_content would be more appropriate, nor any exclusions (e.g., private or draft content). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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