bc_open_page

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses return section shapes (card vs. list, header adaptation), enum options and selectedOption structure, stateVersion usage for stale-state protection, bookmark behavior, and explicit lifecycle instructions ('Always call bc_close_page when done', 'Do NOT call this if the page is already open').

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?

Although lengthy, the description is well-structured with a clear opening statement, numbered workflow, bullet-like examples, and distinct topic paragraphs. Every sentence adds essential information about section shapes, enum handling, or tool relationships; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure: sections, kinds, content shapes (fields, rows, actions), and totalRowCount. It provides multiple page-type examples (Card, List, Document) and covers enum and boolean field serialization, making the tool fully comprehensible in context.

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 input schema already covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by giving concrete pageId examples (21, 22, 42), explaining that bookmarks come from prior list rows, and detailing the tenantId default behavior, thereby enriching schema semantics.

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 begins with a clear, specific action: 'Opens a Business Central page by its numeric page ID and returns its complete state as a list of sections.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by naming bc_query, bc_search_pages, and other tools that do not need a pageContextId, and by positioning itself as the entry point for page-scoped work.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'For bulk, read-only data over standard entities, prefer bc_query' and 'Use bc_search_pages first if you do not know the page ID.' The description also gives a typical workflow sequence and warns against reopening an already-open page, making usage expectations unambiguous.

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