related_pages

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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the 'unique, same-category' scope and the 'indexed canonical' prerequisite, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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, grammatically clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource and conveys the core purpose efficiently.

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 rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. However, terms like 'same-category' and 'indexed canonical' are not elaborated, which could leave some ambiguity for an agent deciding invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain either parameter. 'Indexed canonical page' loosely corresponds to the 'url' parameter but doesn't clarify it, and 'limit' is entirely unaddressed. The description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 finds unique, same-category pages related to an indexed canonical page. The verb 'find' and resource 'pages' are specific, and the qualifiers distinguish it from sibling search and doc retrieval tools.

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 implies use when needing related pages for an indexed canonical page, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search_docs or get_page. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is merely implied.

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