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

Annotations only declare read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context: max 40 lines, largest-first ordering, paging, '+N new' counts with ids, closed-page recovery, and ~45s timeout messages.

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 main action is front-loaded and the description packs necessary behavioral detail without outright waste. It is a long paragraph with some repetition and dense fallback/timeout details, but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema and parameter descriptions are absent, yet the description covers return shape (up to 40 lines, +N new ids) and timeout/fallback behavior. It still omits page and candidate identifier format details, keeping it short of fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains pageNo paging and the roles of page and candidate, but does not define identifier formats or schema constraints/default for pageNo.

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: 'Show a candidate's children on an open page', with ordering and line-limit behavior. It also explicitly references open_page for comparison and fallback, making it distinguishable from the sibling 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?

Explains paging via pageNo, fallback to open_page when the page cannot be read again, and repeated expand calls on timeout messages. It does not say when to prefer expand over read_panel or find, but the usage context is clear.

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