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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, lowering the safety-disclosure burden. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: substring semantics, all-fourteen-types scope, and the shortest-name-first ordering with the rationale that 'the closest match leads.' It does not disclose pagination behavior, though the cursor parameter's schema description partially covers that.

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 with the purpose front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place: purpose/scope, the tibia_get relationship, and ordering behavior. The enumeration of all fourteen page types in the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema's types enum, so it is not maximally concise, but there is no wasted or filler content.

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?

Because an output schema exists and readOnlyHint is annotated, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It covers the operational facts an agent needs — substring semantics, scope, ordering, and the tibia_get contract — while the schema covers the cursor mechanism. The only meaningful gap is guidance on when the specialized finder siblings should be preferred.

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 80%, so the schema already documents query, types, cursor, and include_inactive, and the description partly restates the fourteen-type scope that the types enum already lists. The ordering statement adds slight interpretive value for how limit selects results, but it does not add meaningful new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opening clause states a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('Tibia pages'), and matching mechanism (substring), then enumerates all fourteen page types to establish full scope at a glance. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from its siblings by framing the tool as the step that 'Turns an approximate name into the exact page name tibia_get expects.'

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 tibia_get linkage provides clear context: use this when you have an approximate name that must be resolved before calling tibia_get. However, it gives no exclusions and does not contrast itself with the specialized tibia_find_creatures and tibia_find_items siblings, so routing between the general and specialized finders is left to inference.

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