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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. Description adds that output is markdown matching the .md-suffixed site, that every page ends with its canonical URL, and that out-of-set paths are refused with a message. These are useful behaviors beyond annotations.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, path list, and behavioral notes. No redundant or filler sentences; every part contributes to correct invocation.

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?

Given a generic reader with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, valid inputs, output hint (canonical URL), and error behavior. Sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema documents path and lang. The description adds value by enumerating the accepted path patterns and clarifying that paths outside the set are refused, which goes beyond the schema's single example.

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 (reads) and resource (any public GMM page as clean markdown), and the .md equivalence clarifies output. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like get_article or get_entity_record, so sibling differentiation is implicit at best.

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?

Provides a clear use case: follow a link from another result. Lists valid path patterns, which implicitly defines scope. No explicit when-not or alternatives to typed getters, but the context is clear.

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