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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the output is Markdown not HTML, the response carries MCS source documents and calculator ids, and question-sets return Q&A separately.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then layers return-shape and citation guidance. Every sentence carries information, though the final citation instruction is advisory rather than operational and slightly dilutes focus.

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 tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, the description covers what is needed: what it returns, in what format, and how to obtain the required slug. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already says 'from search_documents or list_documents. Required.' The description repeats the slug provenance but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch the full text of one guide/article/question-set by slug. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting slugs come from search_documents or list_documents, so an agent can tell retrieval-by-id apart from listing/searching.

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 makes the workflow explicit by telling the agent the slug must come from search_documents or list_documents, which effectively routes discovery through the siblings. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., when only metadata is needed), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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