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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return format (Markdown) and the rejection rules for external URLs, private APIs, and drafts. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error/empty-result behavior, keeping 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by input sourcing, path semantics, and rejection rules. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 output schema, the description covers what is returned, how to obtain the input, and what inputs fail. Missing are edge-case behaviors such as not-found handling or whether unpublished-but-previewable content is readable, but the essential calling information is present.

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 0% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it specifies that the value is a relative public path sourced from search results and that the path also determines the language of the returned content. It lacks a concrete example format or leading-slash convention, which is the remaining gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair, 'Read Markdown for a public Semly page or published article', and immediately scopes it to public/published content. An agent can distinguish this from search_content (which produces the paths) without opening any 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?

It states where the input comes from ('its relative public path from search results') and enumerates what is rejected: external URLs, private APIs, drafts. That is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not name an alternative tool for the rejected cases.

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