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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it can return a single page (when slug provided) or a paginated list (when omitted), which is not in the annotations. This clarifies the dual-mode behavior effectively.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. It conveys purpose, return behavior, and scope distinction without unnecessary detail, earning its place with zero fluff.

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 browse/list tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, relationship to blog articles, and return modes. Schema covers parameters, annotations cover safety, and no output schema exists. The context is complete for selecting and invoking this tool.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the input schema. The description's mention of 'slug' and 'paginated list' reinforces the schema's existing 'Omit to list all pages' note but adds little new meaning. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool browses Emora Health condition/specialty/insurance pages, a specific verb-noun pair. It explicitly differentiates from blog articles via 'canonical site pages, not blog articles', distinguishing it from sibling search_content. The return modes (specific page vs paginated list) further clarify scope.

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 context by specifying what this tool covers and what it excludes ('not blog articles'), implying use for canonical pages while search_content handles other content. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the boundary is clear enough for an agent.

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