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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the notion that the payload is the 'complete page,' with no disclosure of page size, truncation, or behavior on an invalid path. Adequate but adds little beyond annotations.

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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the usage rule second. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose and routing adequately. It omits what happens on a non-existent or ambiguous page path, which would be the only remaining gap an agent might care about.

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 `page` property description already explains provenance from search results and normalization of leading slash, .mdx extension, and URL prefix. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the 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 (get) and resource (documentation page content) with the qualifier 'full', which distinguishes it from snippet-returning siblings. It also names search_docs explicitly, so an agent can separate the two tools without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit ordering rule ('use after search_docs') and the condition that selects this tool ('when a snippet isn't enough'), which implicitly defines when search_docs suffices instead. Nothing about when to choose this versus the sibling is left to inference.

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