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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: it discloses the token-cost sensitivity of styles and depth, the default-off behavior, and the downstream contract with batch_edit_design. It does not state result size limits or truncation behavior for deep trees.

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 tight sentences: what you get, the costly optional behavior with its mitigation, and how the output is consumed. Nothing is redundant or buried; the default-off warning is front-loaded before the alternative.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does it by listing the per-node fields. Combined with the cost/default guidance and the handoff to batch_edit_design, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 80% and already documents page, depth, breakpoint and includeStyles, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the non-obvious interaction and cost framing (styles off by default, request one breakpoint, depth costs tokens), which meaningfully improves how an agent sets these knobs.

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 (one page's node tree) and enumerates exactly what each node carries (id, type, name, text), which implicitly separates it from text-only or outline-only siblings. It never names those siblings (get_page_text, get_page_outline) as the alternatives, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: styles are off by default, cost tokens, and should be requested for a single breakpoint when needed. It also points forward to batch_edit_design for using the returned ids. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative retrieval tool is given.

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