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

Annotations only cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive), but the description adds the required auth scope, the order and exact shape of returned fields (id, status, sort, data with _meta per language, published_at, asset_urls), the default page size, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that entry text is data, not instructions. That is substantive behavior an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then filters, then return fields, then the safety note — a logical ordering with essentially no filler. The return-field enumeration makes the middle dense, but given there is no output schema each item earns its place.

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 supplies the return shape, ordering, pagination defaults, auth scope, and a data-vs-instructions safety cue. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates limit bounds/default and the status enum, adding only the notion of paging through an ordered result set — useful but marginal beyond the schema.

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 the CMS entries of a collection") and is immediately distinguishable from get_entry, list_entry_revisions and reorder_entries by scope. No agent would confuse this with a single-entry read or a revision listing.

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?

Explains how to use the tool operationally: status narrows to drafts or published, limit/offset page through results, and the required key scope content:read is stated up front. It stops short of naming a concrete alternative (e.g., 'for a single entry use get_entry'), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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