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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe lookup, so the description is not repeating safety properties. It adds the domain rule that a page shows only for holders of one of its listed capabilities and write actions only for the matching manage capability, which helps interpret results. It does not say what the answer looks like (list of pages? textual explanation?), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading the core purpose before the motivating scenario. The second sentence is domain explanation rather than tool mechanics, but it does earn its place by telling the agent how to interpret the output.

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?

With one required parameter and no output schema, the description needs to hint at what comes back; 'which pages it opens' does so at a high level. A brief note on whether the result is prose versus a structured page list would make it complete.

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 single parameter is already documented with an example (env_roles.view). The description supplies additional example keys (env_roles.manage, billing.manage) that illustrate the dotted resource.action convention, but adds no format or validation guidance beyond that, 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?

The description states a specific question the tool answers: what a named capability (e.g. env_roles.manage, billing.manage) grants and which pages it opens. That is concrete and distinguishable in spirit from the sibling read tools (find_surface, list_surfaces, get_guide, search_api), but no sibling is named, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 framing 'The answer to "why can't I see this button"' gives the agent a clear diagnostic scenario for reaching for this tool rather than a surface-listing tool. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or explicitly routing to find_surface/get_guide, so it lacks full alternative coverage.

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