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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of clarifying behavior; it clearly states the operation is a read that returns full markdown, not a mutation or search. It does not spell out failure behavior for invalid source paths, but for a simple read tool with an output schema that is a minor omission.

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 with no filler; the core behavior is first, the addressing constraint second, and the usage trigger is folded into the final clause. Every phrase adds operational value.

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 one-parameter read operation with an output schema and sibling tools that handle search and listing, this description provides the path source, an example, and the condition that should trigger the call. Nothing operationally necessary 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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that source_path is the source path from a search result and giving a concrete example ('php/micro-orm/active-record.md'). The agent knows exactly what value to pass and where to find it.

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?

The description states an explicit verb-result pair ('Return the full markdown') and the resource ('one documentation page'), plus the addressing mechanism ('source path'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings: search_docs finds hits, list_projects lists projects, get_document retrieves an individual page.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: 'Use it when a search hit is relevant but truncated and you need the whole page.' It also tells the agent to obtain the path from a search result. It doesn't enumerate exclusions like 'do not use it to browse all documents,' but the stated condition is sufficient for a single-purpose retrieval tool.

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