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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds meaningful context: the edit-permission gate, the full field set returned, that an empty allowed-sites list means any site, and that 'expiresAt' is null until removed. It stops short of ordering, pagination, or behavior when no embed exists.

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?

Only two sentences and nothing is wasted — the long return-field enumeration is load-bearing because there is no output schema. The first sentence is nevertheless a ~90-word run-on that packs scope, fields and cross-references together, making the core purpose slower to extract than it should be.

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?

With a 2-param schema, full description coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: permission requirement, param choice, and the shape of each returned item including the tricky 'block'/'language' numbering and the expiresAt semantics. Missing only edge behavior (neither param given, no embeds present) and ordering.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented by the schema itself, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates the id/spaceKey choice without adding format or precedence rules, and its reference to get_wiki_page's 'anims' numbering explains the returned 'block' value rather than the inputs.

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 names a specific resource (wiki embeds put on other sites) and its two scopes (one page, or every page of a space), which cleanly separates it from get_wiki_page, create_wiki_embed, update_wiki_embed and delete_wiki_embed. The verb 'list' is only implied by the title rather than stated, and the opening noun phrase is dense, but an agent can still tell what it returns.

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?

'Only for somebody who may edit the page; give id for one page or spaceKey for the space' gives a real permission prerequisite and the parameter-selection rule. It never states when to reach for this versus get_wiki_page, list_wiki_spaces or search_wiki, and there is no guidance on what happens if both or neither key is supplied, so usage is implied rather than fully routed.

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