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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the description's added value is scope: only studio-editable web plugin pages. It also discloses the return payload fields and that this tool cannot create pages, both of which go beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with the scope stated first, the follow-up action second, and the misuse-prevention note last. Each sentence carries distinct information and none repeats the annotations.

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 zero-param, non-destructive list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the scope, the returned fields, and the navigation path to studio_open_page. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing to disambiguate. The description goes slightly beyond schema obligations by enumerating the returned fields (id, name, kind, last update).

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 (list) and a narrowly scoped resource: the web plugin pages the page studio can edit, and even names the returned fields. This separates it from the cms_/shop_ list tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with close siblings like studio_list_files or studio_list_sections.

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 a clear next step ('Open one with studio_open_page') and rules out creation ('New pages are created in the studio itself'), which is useful when-to/when-not guidance. It stops short of saying how this differs from studio_list_files or studio_list_sections, which an agent could confuse it with.

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