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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is Markdown and bundles related articles, which is useful, but says nothing about unknown-module behavior, rate limits, or fallback when a key doesn't resolve.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and the payload shape arrive first. Nothing in it needs trimming.

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?

With an output schema, full param documentation, and annotations present, the description only needs to frame the payload, which it does. Language handling and module-not-found behavior are the remaining gaps, but they are minor given the surrounding structured data.

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%, so both parameters — including the lang enum and the get-from-list_modules hint — are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline here.

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 resource (one module) and what it returns (full Markdown text plus related knowledge-base articles). It reads clearly as the single-item counterpart to list_modules, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus list_modules, get_article, or search_content. The only routing hint (module key comes from list_modules) lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent gets no guidance from the prose itself.

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