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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds genuinely useful non-structured behavior: fixed page size of 30, preservation of the widget's display order, and the cursor contract for paging. No detail on what happens with an invalidated cursor, which keeps it at 4.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what comes back and how big a page is, followed by the paging action and the exclusion. Nothing is redundant with the title and no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately carries the return-value burden by listing the fields (image, caption, date, link, alt text, product tags) and the page size. It leaves field shapes and the product-tags structure unspecified, a minor gap for a read-only paginated list.

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 100%, so both widget_id and cursor are already documented. The description only restates the cursor round-trip that the schema's cursor description already conveys, adding no format, encoding, or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (the posts a widget shows), a specific scope (one page of 30, in the widget's own order), and enumerates the returned fields. The closing "Not for feed widgets" separates it from adjacent widget tools such as get_widget and list_widgets.

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 explicit pagination guidance ("For the next page, send next_cursor as cursor") and an explicit exclusion ("Not for feed widgets"). It stops short of naming the sibling tool an agent should use for feed widgets, so the routing is only half-closed.

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