List Wiki page descendants by id

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: auto-pagination, capping at the configured item cap unless limit is set, and the shape of each returned ref (numeric id and permanent slug). With no output schema, that return-shape detail is valuable.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the scope and then the relationship to the sibling and pagination behavior. No filler, though the wording is somewhat prose-heavy for the information conveyed.

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 read-only, auto-paginated listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies scope, pagination/cap behavior, the sibling relationship, and return-ref shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's only parameter-adjacent content ('capped at the configured item cap unless limit is given') restates the limit parameter's own schema description, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('All descendant page refs under a numeric page id') and explicitly frames itself as the id-based twin of pages_descendants_list, which lets an agent infer the pairing. It stops short of stating the sibling's discriminating key (slug) outright, so the distinction is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

Mentions 'the id-based twin of pages_descendants_list', which implies a choice between the two, but never states the condition that selects one over the other (e.g. 'use this when you have a numeric id, use X when you have a slug'). No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites.

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