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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does so by disclosing the return medium (Markdown text) and that the page carries a citable URL, though it says nothing about error behavior for stale or malformed ids.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, followed by id formats. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and full safety annotations, the description supplies what is missing: what content the page contains and what id forms are valid. Only minor gaps remain (behavior on invalid/expired ids, content completeness).

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 schema already says the id must match what search returned. The description still earns credit by showing the concrete id shapes ("venue:acme-bistro", "destination:los-cabos", "listing:los-cabos:1234"), which is genuinely useful formatting detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a search result's full page") and enumerates the content types it yields (menu, dietary options, hours/events, destination page). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like venue_menu or destination_overview, so the boundary is implied rather than stated.

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?

"A search result's full page" implies this is the follow-up step after search, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for structured sub-resources (e.g., venue_menu) that a caller might prefer.

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