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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important trait that the response is the full page text rendered as markdown rather than HTML or a summary. It says nothing about authentication, handling of invalid routes, or whether navigation/boilerplate is included.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose stated before the invocation instruction. Nothing restates the name or title.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and how to address it. Only failure behavior for bad routes and any auth expectation are left unstated, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 already 100% and the schema documents 'route' as a path starting with '/'. The description goes beyond that by giving two concrete route examples, including a locale-prefixed one (/es/work/hotel-marien), which hints that localized paths are valid input.

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 resource ('any page on polargate.ai') and the return format ('as markdown'), which is enough to distinguish it from the specialized siblings like get_case and get_pricing. The verb 'read' is implied rather than written, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 tells the agent how to invoke it ('Give the route') but never says when to prefer this generic fetch over get_case, get_pricing, list_products, or search_site. Usage is inferable from the 'any page' scope, which is the definition of implied guidance.

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