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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: the response is Markdown text and includes a canonical URL for citation. This is meaningful context without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the resource, output format, and id source without wasted words. It earns every part and remains easy to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how the id is obtained, and cites the output behavior, leaving no essential gap for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage, and the description reinforces that the id comes from search. This is a standard baseline case where the schema carries the explanatory load; the description adds no additional semantic detail beyond source provenance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving the full text of one page from the Garage Doorman website as Markdown. It also mentions the canonical URL for citation, which helps distinguish this from sibling tools like search or get_business_facts. The title reinforces the read action clearly.

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 provides clear context that the id comes from search, implying this tool should be used after search returns a page id. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives, but the provenance guidance is enough to route an agent correctly.

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