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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: what a regular page returns (title plus markdown body), how a description surfaces as a <description shown=...> tag and that no tag means no description. The return-format detail partially overlaps with the existing output schema, which keeps this from a 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 action and the discriminated return cases; each sentence conveys actionable information (return shapes, description tag semantics, follow-up tool). It is longer than strictly necessary but nothing is 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-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what gets returned for each page type, how descriptions appear, and which tool to call next 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 description coverage is 100%, and the viewId schema description already documents URL-extraction and ID discovery, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 (read) and resource (content of a specific xTiles view/page) scoped by viewId, and clearly distinguishes the two shapes it can return (regular page vs. collection page). It names the sibling to route to for collection rows, so an agent can tell it apart from xtiles_get_collection_content without opening either 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 when-to-use guidance for both cases and an explicit next step: for collection pages, follow up with xtiles_get_collection_content using one of the listed collection view IDs. It also states the read-before-write rule for descriptions (read before changing, since xtiles_set_page_description replaces the whole description).

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