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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is free. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: page size of 200, the next_offset continuation signal, subfolder page counts, and how the one-line description is derived (frontmatter description, else first sentence). No auth or rate-limit notes, hence not a 5.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose plus scope lead the text before pagination details. The clause stacking (fields, ordering, page size, continuation, sibling pointer) is heavy but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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, so the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return shape (title, description, word count, last change, path order, next_offset, subfolder counts), which is thorough. It is slightly thin on the limit/offset parameters and on how to resume a listing beyond the mention of next_offset.

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 only 25% (only 'workspace' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does partially: 'one folder's' clarifies the folder parameter, '200 at a time' implies the default limit, and 'next_offset' ties to the offset parameter. However limit and offset are never named or bounded, so the gap is only partly closed.

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 ('List the wiki's pages, or one folder's') plus the exact fields returned and the ordering, and explicitly routes file listings to the sibling list_files. An agent can distinguish it from list_files, search_pages and read_page without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context (whole wiki vs a single folder) and names the alternative for a related need ('Uploaded files are in list_files'), and explains pagination follow-up via next_offset. It stops short of stating when to prefer search_pages over a full listing, so it is not fully explicit about all alternatives.

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