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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return format (Markdown full text) and the scope restriction that only published pages are reachable. It does not mention auth requirements or pagination/truncation behavior for long pages, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then accepted input formats, then discovery guidance. The examples are concrete and each sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return format (Markdown full text) and the input scope. For a single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single url parameter is documented with a max length, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by giving two concrete accepted formats, a path ('/pl/cennik/sklepy-internetowe/') and an absolute URL, which clarifies the dual-input behavior the schema only hints at.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+output format ('Full text of one justidea.agency page as Markdown') and enumerates the page types it covers (service, price list, profile, reviews, blog article). An agent can distinguish it from list_services and search_site without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'use list_services or search_site to find the URL', and constrains scope with 'Only pages published on the site'. This names the alternatives and the condition under which each is preferred, leaving nothing to inference.

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