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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds that the result is tree-friendly, that parent filtering returns only direct children, and that both filters are combinable. These details go beyond the schema without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no filler. The core action and return type are front-loaded, followed by filter semantics and sibling guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema covers the return shape, annotations cover the safety profile, and all three parameters are fully described in both schema and description. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool 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?

The schema already covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying direct-children semantics, showing realistic workflows for each filter, and stating that the filters are combinable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List pages belonging to one adventure,' and immediately clarifies it returns summaries rather than full page bodies. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like imagine_get_adventure_page and imagine_get_adventure_pages by naming them and describing the split.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use context for each optional filter: parent for an 'open this act' workflow, documentType for 'list every scene.' It also explicitly tells the agent to pair with imagine_get_adventure_page or imagine_get_adventure_pages when full bodies are needed, making alternatives and exclusions clear.

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