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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the return format (full page text rendered as Markdown), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 sentence that front-loads what is returned and then how to identify the target. Nothing is wasted and 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both the input provenance and the returned payload, which is what an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when a path is invalid or not found.

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 already defines path. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the expected format (leading-slash paths like "/faq", localized variants like "/el/residences/b2") and the canonical source of valid paths (list_pages).

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 page) and return form (full text as Markdown) retrieved by path, which is clearly distinct from list_pages and search_pages. It does not explicitly say how it differs from get_overview/get_residence, but the singular-page framing is unambiguous.

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 supplies a prerequisite/context clue by saying the path comes from list_pages, and gives concrete path examples. It never states when to prefer this over search_pages or the other getters, so selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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