Pages List

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

Annotations already flag readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: the HTTP endpoint, the required permission scope (read_content), the API version, and the exact response envelope shape. That goes meaningfully beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four compact lines with the purpose front-loaded and supporting metadata (scope, version, shape) appended. No wasted prose, though the endpoint/version lines are reference-style rather than decision-relevant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully spells out the pagination envelope (count, page, per_page, has_more, next_page, items). Combined with the read-only annotations and fully documented schema, an agent has what it needs to invoke this correctly.

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%, including page/per_page constraints, field selection, and the response_format enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

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 ("List store pages") and gives concrete examples of what a page is (about, FAQ, policies), which disambiguates the resource. The list-vs-get distinction from tiendanube_pages_get is implied by naming but not stated explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. "use pages_get for a single page"). Usage is only inferable from the verb and the required scope declaration.

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