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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context: result ordering ('newest first'), the personal-workspace scoping that determines what is visible, and what the query filters over. It stops short of describing pagination or what happens when more pages exist than are returned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with scope and ordering, then the filter. 'Read-only' restates readOnlyHint from the annotations and is the one mildly redundant clause, but nothing else is padding.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with a rich annotation set and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering and the filter adequately. The remaining gap is the 'limit' parameter and the truncation/pagination story, which matter when a default cap applies.

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 full burden. It does explain 'query' well (a text match over title and body), but 'limit' is never mentioned — no default, no interaction with 'newest first', and no indication of whether results are truncated or paginated.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the caller's personal wiki pages'), plus scope ('from their active workspace') and ordering ('newest first'). That is enough to separate it from get_wiki_page and the create/update/delete siblings, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is implied: it is the enumeration tool for the caller's own pages, with an optional 'query' narrowing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer a different tool (e.g. fetching a single page by id) and no prerequisites or exclusions beyond the 'personal / active workspace' scoping.

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