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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, non-destructive, closed world), and the description adds the key thing annotations cannot: the return is the *full* Markdown text, not a summary or excerpt. Remaining gaps are minor — no note on truncation, error behavior for non-dadaville URLs, or latency.

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 return value and followed by the parameter contract. No filler, no 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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations gaps, the description supplies exactly what is missing: the return format and the accepted id forms. An agent can call this correctly from the description alone.

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 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter entirely — and it does, naming accepted forms (a URL from search, any dadaville.ch URL, or a path) and implicitly bounding scope to dadaville.ch. Nothing about id is left ambiguous.

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 outcome — the full Markdown text of a dadaville.ch page — so the verb+resource pairing is clear. It implicitly separates itself from search (which produces the URL) but never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_page, which is the most likely point of confusion.

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 gives a concrete entry path: use a URL returned by search, or any dadaville.ch URL or path. That is clear usage context, but there are no exclusions and no mention of when get_page or list_pages would be the better choice.

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