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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the source is static documentation build assets, and traversal attempts ('..', encoded traversal), protocol prefixes, hostnames, query strings and fragments are actively rejected rather than silently ignored.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and location, then constraints. The enumeration of rejected input forms is slightly long but each item carries real information for correct invocation.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers the action, return format (raw Markdown), source, and input constraints. No output schema exists, yet the return shape is described, so an agent has what it needs.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by revealing how 'path' resolves to a concrete asset (/md/{lang}/{path}.md) and gives path examples. It adds some meaning beyond the schema, but the lang default is already documented in the schema.

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 precise verb and resource ('Read the raw Markdown content of a documentation page') plus the exact resolution path (/md/{lang}/{path}.md). It is clearly distinguishable from search_docs by the word 'raw' and the single-path framing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 specifies what inputs are valid (internal relative paths) and what is rejected, which implies usage, but it never states when to choose this tool over search_docs or how it relates to the other siblings. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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