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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: output format is Markdown, and long pages are split into parts, which is a real behavioral trait an agent must handle. It stops short of saying how many parts exist or how to know the total before calling.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the primary fact (full page as Markdown) front-loaded and the pagination caveat second. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 present and full parameter coverage, the description needs only enough context to call correctly. It covers format and pagination, but leaves open how many parts a long page has, whether invalid page keys error or return empty, and whether page keys are case-sensitive — minor but real gaps.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why a part parameter exists at all ('Long pages come in parts'). The page key and language parameters remain explained only by the schema.

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 — the full text of one holos33.com page returned as Markdown — and adds scope ('including legal and privacy pages'). It does not name a sibling, though the site-scoped 'one page full text' framing implicitly separates it from search_content and the narrow get_faq/get_privacy_and_data slices.

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?

The 'full text of one page' framing implies bulk page retrieval, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the similar siblings (get_article, get_faq, get_privacy_and_data) that overlap in content. Usage must be inferred.

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