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 that the return value is raw Markdown, which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about missing-page errors, size limits, or caching behavior.

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 resource and route front-loaded followed by the path constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description correctly states what is returned (raw Markdown), and the parameter contract is fully documented by the schema plus annotations. Minor gaps remain around error handling for unavailable languages or missing paths, which the schema only partially covers.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by showing how lang and path compose into the URL template (/md/{lang}/{path}.md) and by providing an extra path example not in the schema. It reinforces rather than merely repeats the constraints.

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 ("Read") and resource ("raw Markdown content of a documentation page") and even exposes the underlying route (/md/{lang}/{path}.md). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_docs and search_docs, which enumerate or query rather than fetch a specific page's raw content.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this to fetch one known page's raw text, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives (search_docs, list_docs) are named. The path-format constraint is parameter guidance, not usage routing.

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