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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the count returned reflects the full matching set even when the list is capped, and the filter matches words in addresses, not exact strings.

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, each earning its place: the core function, the recommended workflow, and the key counting caveat. The description is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

The description covers the purpose, the filter behavior, the count/cap gotcha, and the workflow with siblings, which is sufficient for correct invocation. However, since there is no output schema, it does not describe what fields each returned page will contain, which an agent might need for subsequent steps.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explains 'section' and 'contains' implicitly, and 'limit' is only alluded to as capping the list. It does not explicitly name or describe the parameters, leaving some ambiguity around limit's exact behavior and units.

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 identifies the tool as listing pages within a single section, with optional filtering by an address word. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by placing it in the workflow between etfiq_sections and etfiq_page, so an agent can tell what it is for.

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 explicit workflow guidance: use after etfiq_sections to find a page, then etfiq_page to read it. It names the relevant siblings, though it does not state conditions where this tool should NOT be used or which sibling might be preferable in specific cases.

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