MariaDB Documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the return format (full markdown), that links inside the content can be followed for navigation, and that it returns the complete page rather than a snippet. No rate limits or failure modes (e.g. behavior on a non-doc URL) are mentioned, which keeps it just short of 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the usage condition, the sibling distinction, and the return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (full markdown, links), how to obtain the input (full page URL, with example), and when to prefer the sibling. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100% and already documents `url` as 'The URL of the page to fetch'. The description adds genuine meaning beyond that: it accepts full URLs and supplies a concrete example format (https://mariadb.com/docs/getting-started).

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 ('Fetch the full markdown content of a specific documentation page from MariaDB Documentation') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling `searchDocumentation`'s partial results. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when you have a page URL and want to read its content') and an explicit alternative ('Since searchDocumentation returns partial content, use getPage to retrieve the complete page when you need more details'). That is a clean when/when-else routing rule.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating the return shape ('contextual content with titles and direct links to the documentation pages'), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it searches, when to use it, and what it returns. The core capability is front-loaded and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return format and the call's purpose, which is what an agent needs to invoke it. It omits search behavior details (result limits, ranking, breadth of corpus) and query guidance, but nothing here would cause a mis-invocation.

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?

There is one parameter, 'query', with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden — and it adds nothing about query semantics (keyword vs. natural language, syntax, expected granularity). 'Find specific documentation' only loosely implies it is a search string, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Search across the documentation') and enumerates the content types it reaches (code examples, API references, guides). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling getPage, which is the natural alternative for retrieving a single known page, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use triggers: answering questions about MariaDB Documentation, finding specific docs, understanding how features work, locating implementation details. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., 'to fetch a page you already have a link to, use getPage instead'), so it is context-rich but not routing-complete.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: one call per distinct issue, no duplicate reports per conversation, sanitize personal info implied by schema, and self-verify before filing. It does not say what happens after submission (acknowledgement, ticket creation) or that the call is a one-way external side effect.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage triggers, then constraints — a sensible order with no filler. It runs long (six sentences) and the verification/dedup rules could be tightened, but every sentence still informs a decision.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never mentions what the tool returns or whether the report is acknowledged, which is the main remaining gap for a write-style external call. Everything needed to decide whether and how to call it is present.

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 the schema descriptions already explain goal, content (with what to include and quoting), and pageUrl. The description adds no parameter-level 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Report an issue in the documentation of MariaDB Documentation') and the downstream effect ('so the team can fix it'). Easily distinguished from siblings getPage (read) and searchDocumentation (search) since this is the only submission/write path.

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers (outdated, contradictory, missing, unhelpful content; user-reported problems), an explicit when-not ('Do not use this tool to confirm that a page is accurate'), plus a verification threshold ('quick sanity check… no need to exhaustively re-read') and a dedup rule. This is about as complete as routing guidance gets.

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