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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it scopes results to the current user, names the artifact lifecycle states, and tells the agent to follow nextCursor for large libraries. There is no contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose and scope, the second gives the critical pagination instruction. No filler, and the most important behavioral detail is front-loaded.

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 list tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers what, whose, which statuses, search criteria, and pagination. The only slight gap is that 'platform-taken-down' is mentioned in prose but not directly reflected in the status enum, leaving a small ambiguity about lifecycle filtering.

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 the schema already explains limit, query, cursor, and status. The description mostly restates what the schema says ('by title or page ID', 'Follow nextCursor') without adding substantial new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search and page through') plus a clear resource ('current user's published, offline, and platform-taken-down artifacts') and search dimensions (title or page ID). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page or publish_page, which have narrower or mutation-focused purposes.

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 implies this is the tool for searching and paginating through artifacts, and 'current user's' scoping is helpful. However, it never explicitly names alternatives, such as get_page for retrieving a single known artifact, so an agent must infer the boundary from sibling names rather than from direct guidance.

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