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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the result is Markdown, page-specific, and includes provenance and evidence status. No edge cases are mentioned, but with read-only semantics and an output schema present, the description carries adequate transparency.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, source of the ID, output format, and included metadata. Every phrase adds value and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent what to call, where the ID comes from, what the response looks like, and what additional content it contains. Nothing essential is 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?

With no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description compensates by explaining that the id must be the exact ID from list_resources. This gives the agent enough semantic grounding to supply a correct value, even though it does not describe the format or expected length.

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 clearly states the verb ('Retrieve'), the resource ('one page-specific Markdown resource'), and the key constraint ('by the exact ID from list_resources'). It also distinguishes itself from list_resources by specifying that it fetches a single item rather than enumerating resources.

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 description indicates that the ID must come from list_resources, which implies the correct workflow: call list_resources first, then get_resource with the exact ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the stated source and exact-ID requirement provide clear usage context.

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