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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context those annotations cannot: the Bearer API key requirement and the scoping guarantee that it only reaches the wiki owning the key. It stops short of describing pagination or how the limit behaves.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the auth/scope constraint, with no redundant restatement of the title.

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 list tool with rich annotations, the auth and scope information makes it largely callable, and there is no output schema to explain. However, the sole parameter and pagination behavior are left entirely unaddressed, which matters when results can exceed 50 items.

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?

There is one parameter, 'limit', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its default of 50, its 500 maximum, or what happens when the result set exceeds the limit. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema constraints.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List page titles in your Frosh wiki') and implicitly distinguishes itself from content-reading tools by saying titles only. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling 'list_pages', leaving an agent to guess which listing tool to pick.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_pages or list_pages, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the auth note. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word 'titles'.

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