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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the page renders live with today's data in display-capable apps and degrades to returning a link elsewhere, and it discloses the once/last invocation constraint. It stops short of describing pagination or the list-mode return shape.

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-loads the primary effect (shows the page live) and packs the when-to-use and sibling-exclusion guidance into two tight sentences. Dense but every clause carries routing or behavioral information; only the slug/list clause is mildly redundant with the schema.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description covers capability, fallback behavior, invocation ordering, user-intent triggers and list mode. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and the description's 'Without a slug, lists every page' merely restates the schema's own 'Omit to list every page.' It confirms behavior but adds no syntax beyond the structured field, so the baseline 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 concrete verb+resource (open/show a page) and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling write tools by noting that create_view, update_view and upsert_rows render nothing in the chat. An agent can tell exactly what this tool uniquely does before opening any schema.

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 timing rules ('call it once, last', after the review is clean) plus the user-intent trigger ('when the user asks to see, open or show a page'). It also names the sibling tools and their inability to display, which routes the agent away from them.

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