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

Annotations already cover readOnly, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety burden is light; the description still adds real value by specifying what comes back (clean Markdown with no HTML or navigation chrome) and pinning it to a known site behavior. It does not cover error behavior for invalid paths or size/truncation limits for very long pages.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the resource identity plus output format are front-loaded. Every clause (Markdown, /agent parity, no chrome) carries information an agent needs to decide between this tool and a search.

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 takes on the job of characterizing the return payload as Markdown without chrome, which is the main thing an agent needs. What remains unspecified — 404/missing-page behavior and whether large pages are truncated — is minor for a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100% and the path and locale parameters are thoroughly documented there, including the leading-slash, language-prefix and empty-string-for-home rules. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete resource (one Sandooq page) and the exact delivery format (Markdown, the same bytes served at /agent and via Accept: text/markdown, no HTML or navigation chrome). That output-format specificity distinguishes it from search_docs and get_country_info. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_pricing, which overlaps with the 'pricing' path example given in the 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?

The phrase 'one ... page' implies this is the single-resource fetch versus a search or an aggregate lookup, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit 'use search_docs if you don't know the path' or 'use get_pricing for pricing data' routing, and nothing about when not to call it.

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