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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool takes no arguments, that result size can reach hundreds of rows, and that pages hidden by a document's sharing rules are omitted. It does not explicitly characterize the operation as read-only or state whether there is pagination/truncation at that scale, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Scope is front-loaded in the first sentence, alternatives follow, and the return shape plus the hand-off to get_page close it out. The inline example of {category, name, title} earns its space because it shows exactly which fields feed get_page.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and the description need not explain return values, it still supplies the shape and field semantics needed to chain into get_page. Combined with the scale warning, permission filtering note, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to 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?

The schema has zero parameters and the description confirms 'It takes no arguments,' so there is no ambiguity to resolve. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4, and nothing here misleads about inputs.

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 every wiki page') plus an explicit scope qualifier ('in this workspace, unfiltered'), which immediately separates it from filtered search tools. An agent can distinguish it from search_wiki and query without opening any schema.

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?

Names concrete use cases (table of contents, discovering categories) and explicitly routes the agent elsewhere: search_wiki for topic lookup and query for answering questions. It also warns that the tool returns hundreds of rows on large workspaces, giving the agent a reason to pick the alternative.

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