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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: the storefront URL is fixed server-side (no URL input needed) and "normalized" output. It does not describe return shape or pagination edge behavior, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

The purpose statement is front-loaded and tight, but the two parameter definitions duplicate the schema word-for-word, which is dead weight. The line "Use brooklinen_page to get a Brooklinen static page" is a redundant/awkward restatement of the sibling's own purpose.

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 list endpoint with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, pagination, and the sibling relationship. Nothing an agent needs to call it is missing, though the single-page routing could be stated more sharply.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, and the description simply restates them verbatim (default 50 / max 250, 1-based). No additional meaning is added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Returns normalized static pages from Brooklinen") and names the sibling brooklinen_page as the singular-page tool. The plural/singular distinction is implied by the resource name and the explicit sibling reference, so an agent can largely tell them apart.

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?

"Use brooklinen_page to get a Brooklinen static page" routes the agent to the alternative tool for the single-page case. It gives a clear alternative but never states the explicit condition (list vs. one page) or any exclusion for this tool itself.

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