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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: ordering (newest first), default values, and the meaning of `truncated: true`. This is the kind of return-signal an agent needs beyond the safety profile.

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?

One compact paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage framing, defaults, and the truncation caveat. Every sentence carries checkable information with no padding.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by disclosing ordering, default/limit bounds, and the `truncated` return signal, plus how to continue (raise limit or page through list_pages). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and both parameters already document their defaults and maxima. The description largely restates those bounds (days 7/max 30, limit 20/max 50) without adding new semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource with scope ('Pages of the Radix Wiki edited within the last N days, newest first') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings, noting it returns the 'Same rows as list_pages' and serves a polling rather than reading use case. An agent can tell it apart from list_pages and get_page_history without opening a 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 for use ('what to poll when you are watching the wiki rather than reading it') and routes to list_pages as the alternative for paging. It stops short of an explicit when-not condition, but the usage framing is concrete and actionable.

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