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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond those: it is 'cheap to call', returns paginated results with `total` and `has_more`, and issues an explicit warning not to treat page 1 as the whole Wiki when `has_more` is true. This is valuable operational detail not present in the annotations.

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 dense and every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, cost, pagination, and guidance toward alternatives. It is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary, especially the 'page: 2, page: 3, and so on' portion, but it remains focused and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the response carries (`title`, `id`, `total`, `has_more`), how pagination works, and how the results are ordered. The safety profile is fully covered by annotations, and the guidance to siblings completes the picture. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the `page` parameter's relationship to `has_more` and the pagination flow, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 action ('Lists'), the resource ('this project's documents and Wiki pages'), and the specific output scope ('title and id only'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting the 'newest first' ordering and the fact that it is a lightweight listing operation.

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 explicitly says this is 'the right way to see what exists before reading anything', directly tells the agent when to prefer `search_documents` instead, and explains how to chain pagination with `page: 2`, `page: 3`, and so on. It also routes the caller to `get_document_full_content` after choosing an id, which is excellent alternate-tool guidance.

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