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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing the return format ('clean Markdown') and a cost signal ('cheaply'), which are things the annotations cannot convey. It omits failure behavior (invalid path, redirects), keeping it below a 5.

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 outcome first, then input formats, then the usage router. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

A single-parameter, read-only fetch with no output schema, and the description still covers return format, accepted input forms, and the workflow position. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already gives both example formats ('/pricing' and a full https URL). The description's path examples ('/platform/ai-agents', '/e-invoicing/france') and its restatement that full URLs are accepted largely duplicate the schema. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return the clean Markdown of a single get-flowie.com page') with explicit scope ('single page'). It also separates itself from the sibling search tool by naming search_flowie as the upstream step, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a 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 says when to use it: 'Use after search_flowie to read a page's full content cheaply.' That names the alternative tool and the sequencing condition. It stops short of a true when-not clause (e.g. when to prefer get_flowie_overview instead), so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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