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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower — yet the description adds substantial context: exact response field set, absence of page bodies, that webUrl requires normal workspace access and does not make the page public, and the required API-key scope `wiki:pages:read`.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the branching behavior before diving into return fields and auth scoping. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and clarifying what is absent (bodies) and what webUrl implies. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value for `parent` (it selects the child listing mode rather than merely filtering) and explains what the call returns per result. Limit and account/workspace parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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+resource ('List wiki pages in a space') and immediately defines the root-vs-children behavior, which distinguishes it from wiki_get_page, wiki_search, and wiki_get_space_with_pages without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: omit `parent` for root-level pages, pass a parent slug for children, and notes the citation use case. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g. wiki_search for text matching or wiki_get_space_with_pages for a tree), leaving that routing to inference.

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