list_status_pages

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the returned fields, the public-URL caveat, and the replacement semantics relevant to update_status_page. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences with each earning its place: output fields, conceptual definition, and critical interaction with update_status_page. The most actionable information is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, the domain concept, and the key usage caution. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameters and the description has no burden to explain them. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information could improve the description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the project's status pages') and enumerates the exact fields returned: id, slug, title, monitors, visibility, and public URL. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from list_monitors and list_incidents.

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 usage scenario: this is the read to perform before update_status_page, because update's check_ids replace the monitor set. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative list tools, so it is not a full 5.

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