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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: page content comes back 'as markdown', and search returns 'matching lines with their page and line number.' It does not describe how large a page can be or what an empty search returns, so it earns credit but not a high score.

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, front-loaded with the mode-selection rule and followed by a compact inventory of pages. No restatement of the title, no filler, and every item in the page list carries navigational value for a docs tool.

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?

All three call patterns are covered, both optional parameters are addressed, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation here. For a zero-required-parameter read-only documentation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds meaning on top: it tells the agent that page names must come from the list and supplies a concrete inventory of high-value pages (capsule-api, database, auth, limits, storage, schedules, email, teams, examples/todo) that the schema does not enumerate. That is real guidance beyond the field definitions.

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 names three concrete modes tied to the two optional parameters: read a page as markdown, search all pages for words, or list pages when neither is given. That is a specific verb+resource statement an agent can act on without opening the schema. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the nearby fuast_guide tool, leaving the agent to infer which one answers a documentation question.

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?

It explicitly states the selection rule for its own modes — 'With neither, lists the pages' — which is exactly the branching an agent needs for a zero-required-parameter tool. The 'Useful pages' enumeration also signals when a targeted page read beats a search. There are no exclusions or comparisons against sibling tools, so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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