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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: output is Markdown text, section filtering returns only that part, and Arabic versions exist for only 17 pages, which warns the agent that language fallback is partial.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the return format before the routing instructions. The enumeration of page types is slightly long but earns its place by defining scope; nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states the return format (Markdown text), the unit returned (one page or one section), and the coverage limit for Arabic. Combined with full schema coverage of all three parameters, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description mainly restates what the schema already documents (path source, optional section, Arabic option). The one genuine addition is the scoping note that Arabic exists for only some pages.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Return the text of one page of www.ibda.co as Markdown") and enumerates the page categories covered, so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It also implicitly separates itself from get_ibda_overview and search_ibda by consuming their output rather than listing pages.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite: the path must come from get_ibda_overview or search_ibda, and gives a concrete example ("/agentic-ai"). It also names the optional narrowing workflow (section heading) and the Arabic variant path, leaving little to inference.

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