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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-openWorld behavior. The description adds beyond that: the exact top-level filter rule (parentId='null'), the returned fields, the hasContent meaning tied to yDocState, and the PRO+ plan gate, though it still omits pagination 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?

Four front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, top-level filtering, return shape, and plan gate. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and explains hasContent, while annotations cover the safety profile. The main omission is pagination/cursor behavior, but for a scoped list tool this is a minor gap.

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 40% (limit and parentId are described; cursor, projectId, proposalId are not). The description repeats parentId's schema rule and hints at project/proposal scope, but it never explains cursor pagination or expands on limit, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 resource ('wiki pages') with a clear project-or-proposal scope, so it is distinguishable from get_wiki_page, create_wiki_page and update_wiki_page. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_pages, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Provides scope ('in a project or proposal scope') and a plan gate, implying it is for enumerating wiki pages within a known container. It does not state when to prefer it over list_pages or get_wiki_page, nor any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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