alefba_document_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the HTTP method (POST), endpoint, and exact return structure ({document_url, pages}). However, it does not explicitly state if the operation is read-only or non-destructive, though the context implies it.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The bilingual addition (English/Persian) is relevant and does not detract. Slightly longer than necessary but still efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description need not detail return values. It adds useful context about the API endpoint and instance selection. For a simple list operation, this is sufficient.

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 explain parameters. It clarifies that document_url is the document identifier and instance is optional (defaults to default). However, it does not specify the expected format of document_url or how instances are configured.

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 action ('list the page URLs') and the resource ('previously uploaded document'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact output (collection of page URLs) and HTTP endpoint.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like alefba_read_document or alefba_document_status. The description only explains the instance parameter but lacks context for tool selection.

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