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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return payload shape (id, name, link, parentId, tags) and that the result is a hierarchy-friendly summary rather than full content.

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 sentences deliver purpose, return shape, and a companion-tool pointer with no filler. The core scope is front-loaded, making the definition easy to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only list operation with one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and rich safety annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: scope, return type, and how to fetch full content. Nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage for the single required parameter is 100%, with worldId described as a Mongo _id. The description only reinforces 'one world' without adding new parameter syntax, format, or edge-case details, so 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 verb ('List') and resource ('all pages belonging to one world'), and identifies the return format as a tree-friendly summary, which distinguishes it from content-fetching siblings like imagine_get_world_page and tag-filtered variants. This is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 provides clear workflow guidance by pairing this tool with imagine_get_world_page for full content, implying this tool is for summaries and navigation. It does not explicitly contrast with imagine_list_world_pages_by_tags or imagine_search_world_pages, so it misses full exclusionary guidance.

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