get_widget_choices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the tool pages through results, supports case-insensitive substring filtering via q, and intentionally avoids including all choices in get_widget_options to prevent schema bloat. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema implies, though it does not detail return structure or edge cases.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and rationale, the second elaborates on the q parameter. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value with no filler.

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 paginated list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description covers the key points: paging behavior, filtering option, and why it exists. It does not describe return format or limit/offset boundaries, but these are minor for a read-only paging endpoint, making the description reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly defines 'q' as a case-insensitive substring filter on value/label and implies limit/offset through 'Page through.' However, the required parameters 'widget' and 'option' are only referenced generically as 'one of a widget's options' and are not elaborated on, leaving potential ambiguity about their formats or allowed values.

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: 'Page through the choice rows for one of a widget's options.' It uses a specific verb ('page through') and resource ('choice rows'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling get_widget_options by explaining why choices are kept separate. This makes the purpose immediately clear.

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 context for when to use this tool: it's for paging through many choice rows to avoid bloating the schema, and it mentions the q filter for substring matching. However, it does not explicitly state 'use get_widget_options when you need all choices at once' or provide other exclusionary guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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