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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the return shape (ordered sections/containers with tag and key) and its role as a prerequisite for add_section and set_style. It stops short of stating whether results are paginated or cached, so it is short of a 5 but well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the resource description comes first, the usage instruction and the sibling contrast follow in priority order.

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 read-only, two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, when to call it, and how it differs from the nearest sibling. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, aside from the self-evident siteId.

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 50%: route is documented in the schema but siteId has no description anywhere. The description contributes no parameter detail at all, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds to what the schema already says — the baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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?

Names a concrete resource (one page's structure: sections and named containers in order) and states what each element carries (tag and key). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling get_page_text by contrasting 'words' with 'the boxes they sit in', so an agent can pick between them without opening 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 when-to-use ('Use this before changing layout, spacing or adding anything') and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ('get_page_text shows words, this shows the boxes'). The routing decision is fully specified.

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