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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the result (line ranges per heading, partials inlined) even though no output schema exists. It stops short of mentioning size limits, truncation, or how deeply nested partials are handled.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core capability and ends with the motivating use case. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 read-only, 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and why, which is the main gap it needed to fill. Behavior on unresolvable page ids, very large pages, or partial cycles is left unstated.

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 four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the expand and classes defaults. The description alludes to partial expansion but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb+resource (outline a page) and enumerates exactly what the outline contains: sections, headings with line ranges, and expanded {% render %} partials. It is clearly distinct from file-reading siblings like read_site_file, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

The trailing clause 'so you can place an edit without reading every file' implies the intended moment of use (before editing, as a cheaper alternative to reading files), but it never states when to prefer this over read_site_file, list_pages, or get_block, nor any exclusions.

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