find_pages

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: filters are AND-combined, results include specific fields, and it requires WEBCAKE_API_BASE + WEBCAKE_JWT. No contradiction.

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 concise: three sentences covering purpose, filter behavior, and result content. It is front-loaded with the primary use case. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description covers result fields, filter logic, and authentication requirements. It could mention pagination (though limit is in schema) but overall complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so descriptions exist for each parameter. The description enriches these by explaining filter combination logic and giving an example query (name='sale' + domain='shop.com'), which adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 searches pages by multiple criteria (name, domain, page_id) to locate a page for editing. It distinguishes from siblings like list_pages and get_page by specifying the use case of locating a page to then pass its ID to update_page/add_section.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (to find a page for editing) and provides an alternative: using list_pages for a simple list when no filters are applied. It also explains the AND-combination of filters, giving clear guidance on usage.

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