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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that the tool renders content live to the user in some hosts versus returning a link in others, and by specifying the call-once-last sequencing convention. It stops short of noting auth requirements or what the returned link looks like, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then sequencing and routing information, with no filler sentences. The middle sentence is clause-heavy and could be split, but every clause carries distinct information.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, environment-variant behavior, invocation timing, alternatives, and the no-argument listing case. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without supplementary context.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description's 'Without a slug, lists every page' simply restates the schema's 'Omit to list every page.' No additional format or syntax meaning is added, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Shows the user a page inside the chat') and immediately clarifies the environment-dependent outcome (live render where pages are supported, a link elsewhere). It explicitly contrasts with create_view, update_view and upsert_rows, which 'show nothing in the chat themselves', so an agent can distinguish it from the write siblings at a glance.

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 when-to-use conditions: once, last, after creating or changing a page or its data (once the review is clean), and when the user asks to see/open/show a page. It also names the competing tools and explains why they are not substitutes, leaving little to inference.

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