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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: results include unchecked entries (completeness caveat) and that 'interface and task labels are not operational certification' — a non-obvious trust warning an agent would otherwise miss. Pagination behavior itself is only implied by 'page through'.

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 tight clauses with the scope statement front-loaded and zero padding. The trailing sentence about labels is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but every sentence carries information.

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 8 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and an enumeration of views/filters that the description never explains, an agent cannot confidently construct a call beyond the bare minimum. The trust caveat is valuable, but the description does not cover the surface area of 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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only obliquely touches 'task' and 'interface' (both by warning about labels) and says nothing about 'view' (connect vs full), 'status', 'category', 'query', 'limit', or 'cursor' — a significant gap for an 8-param tool.

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 verb 'page through' plus 'every listing, including unchecked ones' states both the action and the scope (unfiltered/full coverage). It is clearly separable from resolve_task, though the term 'listing' is not defined and the catalogue domain must be inferred from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly excludes the task-matching case and names the alternative ('use resolve_task'), which is the key routing decision. It does not position itself against other obvious browsing/search siblings such as search_sites or filter_sites, so the guidance is clear but not complete.

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