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

Annotations already cover safe-read, idempotency and closed-world behavior, so credit here is for added context: the description discloses exactly which fields come back and names the pagination cursor (next_offset), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits termination behavior and any default page size, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, with the pagination hint placed last where it belongs. Minor friction: it refers to 'next_offset', a field name that appears nowhere in the input schema, which could momentarily confuse an agent looking at the offset parameter.

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 four-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned, how to filter, and how to page through results. Remaining gaps (ordering, total counts, page-size defaults) are modest and partly handled by the limit/offset schema bounds.

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 50%: locale and section are documented in the schema, while limit and offset are not. The description partially compensates by tying 'optionally filtered by API family' to section and framing offset as a cursor follow-up, but limit's default and maximum behavior is left undocumented in both places.

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 verb and resource (list documentation pages) and even names the returned fields (IDs, titles, descriptions) plus the language scoping. It is distinguishable from smspva_docs_read_page and smspva_docs_search by being the enumeration path, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Implies usage through 'optionally filtered by API family' and gives a pagination instruction ('Follow next_offset to browse all pages'), which is a real operational hint. However, it never says when to prefer this over smspva_docs_search or smspva_docs_read_page, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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