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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations by explaining the default compact summary shape and the effect of passing 'full' for the page body markdown, which helps the agent anticipate response behavior.

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 sentences with no fluff: the main action and filters come first, followed by a concrete recipe for the most likely use case, then the key response-shape toggle. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with four optional parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation patterns, the filter semantics, and the response-shape choice. There are no required parameters or hidden gotchas left unexplained.

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 is 100%, but the description goes further by clarifying that refId/refType constitute 'what they're attached to' and by giving an exact, actionable example for finding session recaps. It also interprets the 'detail' parameter in terms of the returned shape, adding meaning beyond the schema's raw enum/default definitions.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource, 'play pages', and states the optional filters (attachment and documentType). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like play_list_user_pages or play_get_page, so while the purpose is clear, the sibling distinction is left implicit.

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 concrete usage guidance with a worked example for session recaps ('pass refType: session, refId: <sessionId>, documentType: player-recap'), which tells the agent when this filter combination is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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