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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; the description adds the meaningful extra that the result is compact metadata only (no document, no graph) and that scope is determined by the API key's project. It does not mention pagination or how many pages are returned for a project, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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, front-loaded with the scope statement before the exclusions, with zero filler. Slightly terse to the point that the parameter-level meaning is lost, but every sentence 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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates returned fields and covers sibling routing, which is most of what an agent needs. It falls short on the two undocumented input parameters and on volume/pagination behavior, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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% for two parameters ('page' integer > 0 and 'query' string), and the description never mentions either of them. With coverage this low the description is expected to compensate by explaining what 'page' means (pagination index? page number?) and what 'query' filters, but it supplies nothing.

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 ('Liste compacte des pages du projet associé à la clé API') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (IDs, nom, slug, statut, version, site, source). It positively distinguishes itself from get_page, get_page_structure and get_page_elements in the same sentence, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when/when-not guidance: this tool returns no document or graph content, and get_page is reserved for 'une lecture intégrale explicite' while get_page_structure/get_page_elements serve 'les corrections ciblées'. The routing conditions to the three named alternatives are spelled out, not inferred.

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