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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: pagination behavior via content_revision and the fact that the inventory can change between pages, which the annotations do not convey.

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-loads the purpose in the first clause, then lists categories and usage notes compactly. Every sentence carries information; wording is slightly clipped but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description implies the return shape (a paginated inventory of pages with revisions) well enough for an agent to act. The main gap is undocumented limit/offset semantics, which is minor for a discovery endpoint whose annotations already cover its safety profile.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the category values (all, articles, ai_guides, website) and the purpose of content_revision, but leaves limit and offset completely unexplained. It covers only half the parameters, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 ("Discover current public pages") and names the content types (website journeys, AI guide profiles). It differentiates itself from siblings like mrx_read_page and mrx_search_guides by being a discovery/list operation, though it does not name those siblings 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?

Gives concrete usage context: pass content_revision on subsequent pages to detect a changed inventory, and "Read a page before citing it," which implicitly routes the agent to mrx_read_page for actual reading. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives, but the operational guidance is clear.

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