List Document Pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation is paginated and scoped to a document, but it does not disclose output shape, default page size, or pagination/sorting behavior beyond what the schema already implies.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and key qualifier ('with pagination') are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only listing tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema to explain what a page listing returns, and the description does not clarify pagination defaults or how this tool differs from sibling doc_get_pages.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description only mentions pagination generically, which maps to index/nValues but adds no extra semantic value beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('pages in a document'), and a distinguishing feature ('with pagination'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like transkribus_doc_get_pages or transkribus_doc_get_page_ids, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling list containing similarly named page-listing tools, the lack of any 'prefer this when...' or 'use X instead for Y' instruction is a notable gap.

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