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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral detail of ordering by position, which goes beyond annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, and provides useful context without being verbose.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and key details (pages, report/template, ordering). No waste or 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?

Given that an output schema is present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose, scope, and ordering, which is sufficient for a simple listing tool. The input parameters are fully described in the schema, and the tool's behavior is adequately explained.

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 both parameters (source_id and source_type) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing substantive about parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates the scope (report/template) that matches the source_type enum.

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 (List), the resource (pages), the scope (for a report or template), and the behavior (ordered by position). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_reports and list_templates, making it obvious what it returns.

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 implies usage by stating it lists pages for a report or template, giving context but not explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use. It doesn't mention that you should use this for retrieving page structure rather than other list tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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