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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the scope of the result set, the display-order guarantee, the returned fields, and the workspace plan requirement, all of which help the agent predict behavior.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, then the return fields, then the downstream use cases and access requirement. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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 simple one-parameter listing tool, the description is complete: it states the input, the output fields, the ordering, the downstream usage, and the access restriction. Although there is no output schema, the description itself fills in the return contract sufficiently.

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%: the only parameter, project_id, is already documented as the unique identifier of the project. The description adds no new semantic detail about the parameter itself, but the schema fully covers it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description names a specific verb and resource ('List a project's whole wiki tree') and precisely scopes the output to folders and pages with uid, name, type, and parent_id in display order. This clearly distinguishes it from single-page tools like show_wiki_page and page-creation tools like create_wiki_page.

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 description conveys exactly when it is useful: to resolve the page uid needed by show_wiki_page and to choose a parent_id for create_wiki_page. It also notes the Pro/trial requirement. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus related list tools, but the purpose context is clear.

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