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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that the storefront URL is fixed server-side (no URL param needed), but it discloses nothing else beyond schema-level paging defaults. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the whole thing is short and readable. The parameter restatements duplicate what the schema already documents, which is minor waste, but nothing is buried or bloated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the sibling routing and paging defaults, the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only marginal gaps.

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. The description merely restates the same defaults (limit 50/250, page 1-based) without adding format, range, or interaction semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 Rebag') and ties it to an explicit source URL. It also names the sibling rebag_page, giving the agent a way to tell the plural list tool from the singular page tool.

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?

The closing sentence 'Use rebag_page to get a Rebag static page' routes the agent to the alternative for single-page retrieval, which is exactly the sibling distinction that matters here. It lacks explicit when-not guidance beyond that routing, but context is clear.

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