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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds the return format ('Full text (markdown)') and confirms it returns the complete content of a single page, which is valuable behavioral context beyond 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?

A single and concise sentence carries all necessary information: what is returned, the resource, and the source of the parameter. The most important scope ('one comparison page') is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what it returns, how to identify the target (slug), and where to obtain the slug. No behavioral or routing aspects needed for a correct call are missing.

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 slug with an example (cuvo-vs-wheel) at 100% coverage, so a baseline 3 applies. The description adds the provenance hint 'from list_comparisons,' telling the agent where to obtain a valid slug, which expands on the bare 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 description states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the full markdown text of one Cuvo-vs-competitor comparison page. It is clearly scoped to comparison pages and one page at a time, distinguishing it from list_comparisons and other get_* siblings like get_article or get_pricing by resource 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 phrase 'by slug from list_comparisons' provides a clear workflow: the agent must first obtain a slug from the sibling list_comparisons tool, then call get_comparison. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use alternatives like get_article or get_overview, but the 'comparison page' resource clearly routes the agent to the appropriate sibling.

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