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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond those annotations: 'Verified by readback,' the edit-survey permission requirement, and the page-boundary timing rule for show/skip logic, though it does not fully cover error or reversibility behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then proceeds through optional parameters, branching behavior, related tools, and prerequisites. It is longer than typical but the branching and routing clauses are relevant to correct use, so it stays efficient despite the density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still summarizes the returned page list. It also covers position behavior, title optionality, prerequisite permissions, verification, and the relationship to add_question and add_end_page, making it complete for 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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description repeats title optionality and position insertion/default-append semantics, but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Adds a page to a survey,' and immediately distinguishes the operation from add_end_page and add_question later in the text. It also names the returned payload fields, so an agent knows what this tool does and 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?

It explicitly routes content placement to add_question and end-page creation to add_end_page, giving clear alternatives. It also states the optional nature of title and position, the default append behavior, and the required edit-survey right, covering when and how to use the tool.

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