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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It uses the inherently read-only verb 'List', enumerates returned fields, and discloses the token cost, giving sufficient transparency for a safe read operation. It makes no mutation claims and contradicts nothing.

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 no filler; the purpose is front-loaded. The return-field enumeration is dense but useful, and the cost note is a single concise operational detail.

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 endpoint with an output schema, the description covers scope, return fields, and cost. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly; a note about using pages.get for single-page details would improve it but is not essential given the clear naming.

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 100%, with both page and limit having types, defaults, constraints, and clear descriptions. The tool description adds only 'paging metadata' and does not need to compensate for schema gaps, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('static websites'), and account scope ('this Vee3 account'). The collection-oriented wording and return fields clearly differentiate it from sibling mutations like pages.create/delete and from pages.get (single page).

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 gives clear context for when to list static websites, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use it. An agent must infer that pages.get is for retrieving a single page; no routing guidance is provided.

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