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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the return shape differs by page type (markdown body vs collection schema with attribute ids/titles/types), which the agent needs to interpret the response.

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, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded and the page-type branching plus the follow-up tool placed after it. No filler.

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-param read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the two return modes and the escalation path to the sibling tool for collection rows.

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 schema's own description already explains URL extraction and programmatic discovery, so the description adds little beyond 'by viewId'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Read the content of a specific xTiles view (page) by viewId') and then distinguishes two distinct behaviors (regular page vs collection page), which no sibling does. An agent can tell it apart from xtiles_get_collection_content or xtiles_get_project_content immediately.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: for collection rows, 'follow up with xtiles_get_collection_content using one of the listed collection view IDs.' That names the alternative and the condition that selects it, so there is no inference required.

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