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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description adds value by disclosing the result shape (grouped by section with title and URL) and the completeness guarantee ('every page'), which matters since no output schema exists.

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 tight sentences: what it returns first, then when to use it. No filler, no repetition, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the usage guidance.

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 trivial read-only listing tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete, describing both output shape and usage context. The one gap is the unaddressed lang parameter, which leaves a small hole in an otherwise adequate definition.

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?

The single lang parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or the default 'es' value. An agent gets no explanation that this chooses the documentation language or that 'all' returns every language, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (every page of the Griddo backoffice documentation), and even specifies the shape of the output: grouped by section, with title and URL. The 'before searching' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the search sibling, so an agent can tell list/retrieve-all apart from find-specific without opening schemas.

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 two concrete use scenarios ('get oriented before searching' and 'when the user asks what the documentation covers'), which cleanly routes the agent away from search_griddo_editor_docs for orientation tasks. It does not state an explicit when-not or name get_griddo_editor_doc as the single-page alternative, keeping it short of a 5.

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