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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behaviour, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by describing the payload (Markdown body plus source url, language, last-modified date), which tells the agent what it will receive and that language variants of a page exist.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the returned content is front-loaded before the provenance hint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 not be fully spelled out, and the description correctly stays brief while still characterizing the payload and the id source. It omits failure behaviour for invalid or missing ids, which is the one remaining gap for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 single parameter already documents its origin with an example. The description only repeats the provenance of `id` (search_knowledge_base / list_documents) without adding format or edge-case semantics such as what an unknown id returns, so the baseline 3 is right.

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?

"Full text (Markdown) of one page" states a specific resource and scope (exactly one document) plus the return format. It never uses a verb like "fetch"/"read" and does not explicitly distinguish itself from look-alike siblings such as get_faq or get_service, so a small inference is still required.

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?

"Ids come from search_knowledge_base or list_documents" names the two alternatives and the workflow that selects them, which is genuinely actionable routing. It gives no explicit statement of when not to use this tool (e.g. for discovery or bulk retrieval), so it stops short of a full 5.

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