list_doc_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists pages with descriptions, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'available' means (e.g., access permissions). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all available UniVoucher documentation pages with their descriptions') and includes a brief benefit clause ('to help find the right content'). It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the benefit clause could be considered slightly extraneous.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., how results are returned) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values, which is a gap for completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema (including its optional nature, type, description, and enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available UniVoucher documentation pages with their descriptions'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_doc_page' or 'get_multiple_doc_pages', which appear to be related documentation retrieval tools, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_doc_page' or 'get_multiple_doc_pages'. It mentions 'to help find the right content', which implies a discovery context, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage ambiguous.

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