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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that output is Markdown and includes a canonical URL, but it does not describe error behavior or invalid-id handling. This is adequate given the annotation coverage, but not rich.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output format, and the second provides the necessary dependency on 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?

For a simple one-parameter fetch tool, the description plus annotations and output schema are nearly complete. It covers what is returned and where the id comes from. A minor gap is not stating how invalid or stale ids are handled, though the output schema likely covers the return structure.

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%, so the single parameter id is well documented. The description repeats the same information ('The id comes from search') without adding new meaning such as format or constraints, so it stays at the baseline set by 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?

The title and description clearly state that the tool reads one page of the Commercial Garage Doorman website and returns its full text as Markdown with a canonical URL. It is easily distinguished from siblings: search is the source of the id, and get_business_facts implies a different data type.

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 explicitly says 'The id comes from search,' which tells an agent to use search first and then fetch with the returned id. This is clear context, though it does not explicitly name get_business_facts as an alternative or state when not to use fetch.

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