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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by stating content is excluded and nesting/revision are included, but says nothing about pagination defaults, page-size behavior, or what expectedRevision does on a read call.

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 tight sentence with zero waste; the distinguishing qualifier ('without content') is front-loaded and the additional return characteristics follow immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. However, for a 4-parameter tool with no schema documentation, the description leaves the pagination and revision parameters opaque, which is a meaningful completeness 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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it does not: id, limit, offset, and especially expectedRevision (an optimistic-concurrency parameter on a read tool) are entirely unexplained. An agent cannot tell from the text whether expectedRevision filters or asserts state.

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 all document pages') plus scope qualifiers: metadata only ('without content'), nesting included, current revision returned. This clearly separates it from read_page, though it never names the 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the metadata-first step before read_page / get_document, but the description contains no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-naming guidance.

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