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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read. The description adds valuable context by explaining the slug pattern and static pages, which helps the agent understand the tool's input constraints. It does not describe error handling, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden, and the description contributes meaningful beyond-annotation information.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, slug pattern, static pages, and a pointer to metadata. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description covers the essential aspects: what it retrieves, how to format the slug, and where to get valid slugs. It could optionally mention the return format (e.g., plain text vs. markdown), but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. Both parameters (slug and locale) are fully described in the schema, including pattern, enum, and default. The description provides concrete slug examples, but these are illustrative rather than adding new semantic meaning not already in the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the full text of any section of the Catalunya 2022 document by its canonical slug.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by focusing on full-text retrieval by slug, and it mentions the sibling get_document_metadata for discovering slugs, setting it apart.

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 explicitly directs users to 'Use get_document_metadata to discover all available slugs,' which serves as a when-to-use pointer for a sibling tool. While it does not directly compare with search_document or list_proposals, the tool's narrow purpose makes usage clear. There is no misleading guidance.

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