academy_list_pages

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

The description states the tool is a read-only listing operation ('Lijst de pagina's op'), showing fields returned and its purpose (checking existence, fetching an id). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but for a simple parameterless read tool this is reasonably transparent. It doesn't describe pagination or sorting behavior, but that's minor for an id/name/title listing tool.

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 concise sentence in Dutch that efficiently communicates what the tool returns and why it's useful. No wasted words, clear structure.

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?

Given this is a parameterless read-only tool with a clear output of listed fields (id, name, title, webUrl), the description is complete enough. It names the exact fields returned, which serves as an implicit output schema since none is provided. The stated utility (checkening existence, retrieving id) gives sufficient context.

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?

There are 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4 for a parameterless tool. There is nothing to explain and the description correctly focuses on return values instead. The description actually captures the parameter-free nature implicitly by simple listing.

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?

Lists a specific verb+resource ('Lijst de pagina's op de Academy op') and names the exact output fields (id, name, title, webUrl). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like academy_list_menu (listing menu items) by explicitly being about pages. Clear, specific, and differentiated.

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 states when it's useful: 'Handig om te zien of iets al bestaat en om een id op te halen.' This gives clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name siblings, but for a listing tool the intended use case is well conveyed. It does not say when not to use it, but its limited role is clear from the pages vs menu distinction among siblings.

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