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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: long pages are truncated at 20,000 characters, and file results must be cited as a file rather than linked. Those are operational details the annotations do not carry.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the truncation and citation caveats. Zero padding, though the first sentence's grammar is slightly tangled.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining essentials: id provenance, truncation limit, and the file-citation rule. A minor omission is pagination behavior on truncated pages.

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%, and the schema already documents both document_id (from search_site_content) and site_id (from list_sites, optional for single-site accounts). The description only restates the document_id origin, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: it returns the text of one page/product/policy/file part identified by document_id. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from search_site_content by naming it as the id source. The phrasing is a bit awkward ('Actually Asked has read'), but the intent is unambiguous.

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 establishes a clear workflow prerequisite: the document_id must come from search_site_content, so an agent knows to search before fetching. It does not state any when-not conditions or alternatives, but for a single-purpose fetch tool the context is sufficient.

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