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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden — and it delivers non-obvious domain semantics: what hasContent means (a record carrying BLOCKS), that archive content is written via save-content {contentId: pageId}, and that the seo-contract skill doc must be read first. It stops short of covering pagination, ordering, or failure modes, but the output schema exists to carry return shape.

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?

Dense and largely front-loaded: the resource definition and record shape come first, and the sibling disambiguation and prerequisite rule land at the end where they belong. It is written in clipped, jargon-heavy fragments ('the record its title, SEO and schema live on') and is longer than most definitions, costing a point on readability rather than waste.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the harder gaps: what a record represents, how it relates to set-archive-record / set-schema / save-content, the hasContent flag, and the mandatory skill-doc read. Missing only operational details like ordering or paging behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description instead documents the returned field set and their downstream owners, which is where the value sits for this no-arg lister.

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?

States a specific resource ('the PAGE that describes each post-type archive') and enumerates the exact record shape {postType, context, url, pageId, title, slug, status, hasContent}. It also explicitly separates itself from a similarly named sibling, list-archive-pages, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Provides explicit routing for follow-up work: title/slug edits go to set-archive-record, SEO to get-seo/set-seo {archive: postType}, schema to set-schema on the pageId. It names the conflicting sibling ('Not to be confused with list-archive-pages') and states a prerequisite ('get-skill-doc {id:"seo-contract"} — read it before the first call').

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