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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the page path is normalized—leading slash, .mdx extension, and URL prefix are 'optional and stripped if present.' This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand input flexibility.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, starting with a one-sentence purpose statement, followed by a usage guideline and parameter details. Each sentence contributes meaningfully; there is no wasted text or repetition of schema information. The structure is easy to parse and the ARGS section clearly explains the single parameter.

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?

The description, combined with the existing output schema and annotations, provides a complete picture for a low-complexity tool. It covers the input parameter fully, specifies usage context, and does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. The tool's behavior is well-scoped and safe, with no missing critical information.

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?

Although the schema has no description for the 'page' parameter, the tool description provides comprehensive guidance: pass the `page` field from a search_docs result, with an example path and explicit clarification about optional prefixes and extensions. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and makes the parameter unambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the full content of a Chainstack documentation page.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling search_docs by emphasizing retrieval of the complete page rather than snippets. This differentiation is explicit in the usage note.

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 explicitly says 'Use after search_docs to fetch the complete page when a snippet isn't enough,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming the relevant sibling tool. It implies a sequential workflow and indicates the alternative (search_docs) returns partial content, making it easy for the agent to choose correctly.

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