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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — that results are paginated and that a next_page cursor must be followed until null. It doesn't state rate limits or default page size, but the core pagination contract is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and pagination mechanics immediately after. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 still conveys the response envelope (paginated, next_page cursor) which is the critical thing an agent needs. It stops short of describing resource fields or total counts, but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so 'page' and 'limit' are already fully documented. The description's 'pages start at 0' merely restates the schema minimum/default, and the next_page guidance is output-side rather than clarifying the input parameters, so it lands at the baseline.

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 one page of Hub Planner resources') and scopes it to a single page, which distinguishes it from an unfiltered/full dump. It gestures at the search sibling ('use the search tool where available') but never names hubplanner_search_resources, so the differentiation is slightly hedged.

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 explicit operating instructions: pages are zero-based, iterate next_page until null, and switch to a search tool when filtering is needed. The only gap is the vague 'where available' qualifier instead of pointing at the concrete sibling tool.

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