List RaivatEdu Pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the set is 'verified' and 'derived from the site's sitemap,' it enumerates the page categories actually returned, and it documents the response_format tradeoff (human-readable summary vs. full structured object).

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, then the category inventory, then Args, then return shape — a logical order with no filler sentences. The long enumeration of pages (home, pricing, enterprise, features...) is somewhat redundant with the documented return shape, but it does set agent expectations cheaply.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the exact JSON shape ({market, count, pages:[{path,url,type,market}]}) and the markdown-vs-json behavior, plus zero required parameters and the default market are all clear. An agent can call this correctly and chain into raivatedu_get_page_content without further probing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three params including enums, defaults, and the 'configured market' fallback. The Args block in the description largely restates the schema, with only the example type values ('feature', 'solution', 'resource-article') adding marginal illustration that the schema also includes. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the public pages available on RaivatEdu for a market') and frames the result as a 'navigation map of the site,' which distinguishes it from content-fetching siblings. It also names the natural follow-up tool, raivatedu_get_page_content, making the boundary between listing and retrieval explicit.

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?

Clear about context of use: this is the entry point for discovering paths, and 'Feed any returned path to raivatedu_get_page_content' gives explicit next-step routing. It stops short of exclusions — it never says whether to prefer raivatedu_list_features or raivatedu_list_solutions when only one category is wanted, despite those siblings existing.

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