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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior: it returns the complete plain text rather than an excerpt, and no filtering/user scoping applies. It says nothing about missing-id behavior or whether markup is stripped.

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?

The English sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the Dutch sentence is a verbatim translation that adds no information for an agent already reading the English text. Roughly half the description is redundant repetition rather than earned content.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, and the description does state the return shape ('full plain text'). What remains unspecified — error behavior for an unknown id, and whether text includes markup — is minor for a tool this straightforward.

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 both parameters already document the numeric id and the default store view code 'nl'. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Full plain text of one CMS page or blog post" names a specific retrieval verb and resource, and the word "one" plus "full plain text" separates it from the sibling gnv_knowledge_search, which returns matches rather than full content. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the pairing.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite about needing an id from a prior search, and no exclusion of alternatives. The only routing hint ("id ... from gnv_knowledge_search") lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself gives no guidance.

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