Pages: check it can answer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by decoding the -1712 error as a blocking human dialog and prescribing a no-retry policy, which is operational behavior neither the annotations nor the schema could convey.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the probe action, the once-per-session sequencing rule, and the error-handling exception. The most important instruction (call once before other Pages tools) is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here. Given the tool's role as a gate before other Pages calls, the description covers the prerequisite timing, the failure signature, and the retry policy - everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. Schema coverage is 100% and empty, so no compensation is needed.

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: 'Check Pages can answer AppleEvents', which is a health/liveness probe. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling editing and creation tools, so an agent knows this is a precondition check rather than a document operation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Run once before any Pages op' and 'Call once before other Pages tools', giving both the trigger and the sequencing. It also states the negative case clearly: 'never loop on failure' and 'don't retry until it's dismissed'.

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