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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope. The description adds the one thing annotations cannot convey: the response is 'clean markdown', which matters since no output schema exists. It omits error behavior for nonexistent paths, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, no filler, with the return-format claim front-loaded ahead of the parameter guidance. Every clause carries information an 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers output format and path conventions adequately; the absent output schema is compensated by the 'clean markdown' statement. Only missing edge-case context (behavior on invalid or missing pages) prevents a 5.

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 the path parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by giving concrete path examples ('/pricing/', '/services/virtual-receptionist/', '/' for homepage) that clarify leading-slash and homepage conventions the schema only alludes to.

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 (Returns) and resource (any ASC page) plus the output format (clean markdown). The word 'any' implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower siblings get_pricing/list_services, but it never names an alternative, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 tells the agent how to call it (pass a site path, '/' for homepage) but not when to prefer it over get_pricing, list_services, or search_site. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions are given.

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