search_pages_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: access_token is optional and falls back to a cached token, and search_term is optional and returns all pages when omitted. It also specifies the return type as JSON. This goes beyond basic schema info, though it doesn't cover pagination or error behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by an Args section and a Returns line. No wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, parameter meanings, and return type. It omits potential pagination or rate-limit details, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 has no descriptions for its parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates fully with an Args section that explains each parameter: account_id format, access_token optionality with cached token behavior, and search_term optionality with 'return all pages' behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's function: 'Search for pages by name within an account.' It specifies the resource (pages), the action (search), and the scope (by name within an account). While it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_account_pages, the 'by name' qualifier implies a distinction from listing all pages.

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 usage: use this tool when you need to find pages by name. It does not explicitly state when _not_ to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose sentence is enough to infer when it is appropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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