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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds valuable return-shape information: page summary, sections, and FAQ. It also implies language-specific editions. It does not mention whether content is cached, paginated, or truncated, so it is not fully transparent, but it clearly exceeds what the annotation supplies.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then return contents, then usage. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming what is returned (summary, sections, FAQ). Combined with the enumerated ids and usage contexts, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only edge details like language fallback behavior are left implicit.

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% and both parameters have enums documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting; the description restating the valid id list is largely redundant. The lang parameter and its 'fi' option are not addressed in the description at all, so no meaning is added beyond 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?

Specific verb ('Read the full text') plus a clearly scoped resource ('one of Codemate's main pages'), with the full set of valid ids enumerated so the agent knows the exact universe of pages. This is far more precise than the generic siblings (get_page_data, search_site) and lets an agent select it without opening the 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?

Explicitly states the answering contexts: Codemate's services, delivery model, AI transformation offering, and the Paimen platform. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it versus siblings like search_site or get_page_data, so no exclusion guidance is provided.

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