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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing that HTML and numbers are rendered to the card rather than returned to the agent, and that card-less clients receive only the plain answer. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and transport behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the card behavior, and the closing alternative-routing sentence earns its place. It is somewhat clause-heavy with commas and a semicolon, but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return value (page name, widget count, link) and what happens in card-less clients. Combined with the card-rendering behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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% and both parameters are documented with provenance ('from fastero_list_pages', 'from fastero_list_projects'), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or formatting detail, making a baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show a hosted page live in the conversation') and immediately characterizes the result as a rendered card with current numbers, a Refresh button and an open link. This clearly separates it from siblings like fastero_get_page and fastero_update_page, which are named explicitly.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: to read or change the HTML, use fastero_get_page and fastero_update_page. That names the alternatives and the condition selecting them, so an agent knows when not to call this tool without further inference.

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