list_pages

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already communicate the safe read-only nature, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds domain context about pages, but does not disclose behavior such as default status filtering, pagination semantics, or ordering. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying what makes pages distinct from posts, without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the burden, and the description conveys the core domain difference. However, it does not explain optional parameter behavior or pagination, which would improve invocation correctness for this 5-parameter tool. It is adequate but has clear, fixable gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 5 parameters, the description needs to compensate, but it only implies blog_id through 'of a blog.' It does not explain the semantics of status, page_token, max_results, or fetch_bodies, leaving the agent dependent on schema names and defaults alone.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List the static pages of a blog,' with clear examples. It also distinguishes pages from posts by domain characteristics, which helps the agent identify that list_pages is the right sibling for static content rather than list_posts.

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 provides clear context by contrasting pages with posts ('no labels, no dates in the archive, not in the post feed'), which signals when pages are the target. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating when not to use this tool, but the differentiation is enough for common selection cases.

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