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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that the response is readable markdown text and that output can be narrowed, which is real behavioral value. It does not mention error behavior for an unknown slug or whether content is cached, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 core behavior and the slug source are front-loaded, and each clause carries information. The German text is then repeated as an English parenthetical, which is useful for disambiguation but does duplicate content.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers all three parameters at a workable level. The remaining gap is the accepted value space for 'section' on a tool whose schema gives it no description at all.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does explain the two non-obvious parameters: slug origin with a concrete example, and format='outline' meaning headings-only. The 'section' parameter is only described as 'only one section,' without saying what values it accepts (heading name? id?).

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 specific verb (return/read) and resource (one page of was-ist-mcp.ch) along with the three output modes (full page, single section, outline). It also points at the sibling 'list_pages' as the source of slugs, so an agent can place it relative to its siblings without opening 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?

Explains where the required slug comes from ('list_pages', with the example 'sicherheit') and when to use the 'section' and format='outline' variants. It does not state when to prefer a sibling such as 'search' or 'fetch' instead, so an explicit exclusion is missing.

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