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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing pagination behavior (50 per batch, max 200 via limit, continuation via offset) and the shape of the returned data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then pagination, then usage. Slight redundancy between the title ('どんなページがあるか見る') and the final sentence, but no wasted text.

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 simple read-only listing tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers return fields, pagination, and use conditions adequately. Only a total-count or ordering note 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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: it explains limit's ceiling of 200 and default batch size of 50, and that offset fetches the continuation. It stops short of stating offset's default or unit semantics precisely, but compensation is strong.

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 (return a list) and resource (pages loaded in codenate.jp), and specifies the returned fields (title and URL). It does not name a sibling outright, but 'when you can't find something by searching' implicitly distinguishes it from search_pages.

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 conditions: wanting to know what pages exist, and failing to find something via search. The alternative (search_pages) is implied rather than named, so it falls short of fully explicit routing but gives clear context.

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