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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it enumerates what is included, explicitly states what is excluded (sections), and defines the null-result semantics. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: the first states the resource and fields, the second clarifies a critical exclusion with an alternative, and the third explains null-result handling with a creation path. The essential caveat is front-loaded, and there is 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 zero-parameter, read-only metadata getter, the description is complete: it names the returned fields, warns about the sections omission, provides the alternative tool, and defines null results. Despite the lack of an output schema, an agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and handle both outcomes.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully defines invocation and the description carries no parameter-semantics burden. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this scores 4; the description appropriately does not invent unneeded parameter details.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (SplitPage) and specific metadata fields (name, description, slug, public_url), and explicitly contrasts itself with split_list_sections. An agent can immediately understand what this tool returns and how it differs from related tools.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it says the tool does NOT include sections, tells the agent to call split_list_sections for actual rendered content, and explains that a null result means a page must be created via split_create_page. This routes the agent to the correct alternatives without requiring inference.

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