List pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description text. The description adds that results are lightweight (title plus slug rather than full page bodies), which usefully signals why you might choose this over other surface area, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or emptiness handling.

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?

A single economical fragment with the resource front-loaded and the useful downstream pointer kept short. It earns its place, though it is terse enough that it shades into under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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 list tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the core identity and return shape adequately. It falls short on the unexplained `search` filter and on pagination/ordering behavior, both of which an agent needs before invoking it against a large course.

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 neither of the two parameters is explained. The purpose of `search` is never mentioned at all, and it is not obvious from the name whether it matches title, body, or slug. For a low-coverage schema the description should compensate, and here it does not.

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?

Combined with the title 'List pages', the fragment identifies the resource (wiki pages) and its scope (within a course), and also names the exact payload each entry carries (title + url slug). It is distinguishable from siblings like canvas_list_files or canvas_list_modules, though the verb is only implied by the title rather than stated in the description.

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 parenthetical reference to canvas_get_page implies a two-step pattern (list to get slugs, then fetch a page), which is real but implicit guidance. There is no statement of when to use this versus a direct canvas_get_page call when the slug is already known, and no mention of course_id prerequisites.

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