bbb_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it thoroughly: redirect chains are surfaced via requested_url/final_url, published_at is always null with an explanation of modified_at's meaning, the original article ID is absent, and 404s are declared permanent with the destination named in the error. It also discloses that browser-localized content is excluded.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then constraints, which is the right order. Some sentences are long and run together (the published_at/modified_at clause), costing a little readability, but no sentence is filler.

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?

For a single-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: input forms, returned fields, redirect behavior, date-field pitfalls, and error semantics including permanence. Nothing material 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial semantics the schema does not: that url may point at a pre-redirect article URL, that article_id in the response repeats the requested URL's ID, and why redirect metadata is returned.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get a BBB evergreen page') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (title, introduction, body text, links, image, modified time). It also explicitly separates itself from bbb_article by naming that sibling, so an agent can route without inspecting schemas.

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?

States both accepted input forms (evergreen /all/ URL or an article URL that bbb-article reports as moved) and the exact when-not conditions: 404 when the page is missing, when an article has not moved (use bbb-article instead), and when the redirect leaves /all/. This is an explicit use-this-vs-that rule set.

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