list_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses timestamp formatting (ISO-8601, rounded to the minute), the fact that last_edited_time updates on content and property edits, and the returned row structure. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but the disclosed details are meaningful and not redundant.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the primary action appears first, followed by the returned fields and a useful timestamp caveat. Every sentence adds value, and there is 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the result contains and important timestamp nuances. It could also mention pagination, sorting, or whether archived pages are included, but the core invocation and return semantics are sufficiently specified.

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 the parameter's schema description ('Parent page ID') already explains its role. The tool description adds no further parameter-level detail such as ID format or validity rules, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('List child pages under a parent page'), identifies the target resource, and lists the returned fields. This makes the tool's purpose concrete and easily distinguishable from siblings like list_databases or list_views.

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?

The description makes clear this tool is for listing child pages directly under a given parent page. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the parent-page scoping and single required parameter imply the correct usage context.

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