Get gallery image pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond repeating 'list' (which aligns with read-only). It does not mention rate limits, pagination of the preview page itself, or any authentication requirements. With strong annotations, the bar is lower; the description does not contradict but adds little.

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 one short sentence, front-loading the purpose. It wastes no words. Could optionally add a usage hint, but it earns its place.

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 that it has an output schema (which likely details the returned fields like page numbers, tokens, URLs, thumbnails), the description need not repeat return structure. The tool has 4 parameters with moderate schema coverage and strong annotations. The description is complete enough for a simple listing tool, though a note about the 'one preview page' limitation is helpful.

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 50%. The description does not elaborate on parameters; it only lists output fields. The schema itself documents site enum, gallery object (with gid/token), galleryUrl, and previewPage with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already explains parameters moderately.

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 what the tool does: 'List image-page numbers, page tokens, URLs, and preview thumbnails from one gallery preview page.' It specifies the verb (list), the resource (gallery page metadata), and the output fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like eh_get_all_gallery_pages (which implies fetching all pages) by limiting scope to 'one gallery preview page,' though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 implies the tool is for fetching a single preview page's metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. eh_get_all_gallery_pages or other tools. No exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., gallery access) are mentioned. The sibling context shows many related tools, but the description offers no guidance on selection.

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