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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by revealing the return format (complete Markdown text), which matters because there is no output schema; it does not mention error behavior for missing paths or any size/truncation limits.

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?

One sentence with the return value front-loaded and the examples inline; nothing is redundant and nothing needed is omitted.

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 no output schema, the description covers the input format and return type adequately. Only edge cases (invalid or missing path, non-existent page) are left unaddressed.

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 single parameter is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's vague 'La ruta de la página' by giving two concrete route examples, clarifying the expected path shape.

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 and resource (retrieves the full Markdown text of a documentation page, keyed by route), which lets an agent distinguish it from list_pages or search_docs. The sibling differentiation is only implicit, since no alternative tool is named.

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 implied rather than stated: the requirement of a path hints that you must first discover routes via list_pages or search_docs, but the description never says when to use this versus those siblings or what to do when the path is unknown.

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