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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses the return format (Markdown headings, notes, input tables, URI/method/JSON schema/JSON examples as code blocks), that images are returned as links, the pagination behaviour, and that no model or account is required — the kind of context an agent needs 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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then paging, then the citation rule and the auth/setup note. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 carries the explanation of return contents and covers paging and prerequisites; nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the response 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 75% and already documents id, images, offset and maxChars with defaults and ranges. The description only adds that paging resumes from nextOffset; it says nothing about the images toggle or maxChars behaviour, so it does little beyond 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 ('Reads one MIDAS help-centre article in full, as Markdown') plus the exact content returned, which cleanly separates it from the sibling midas_docs_search that only finds articles.

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 concrete operational guidance for the paging case ('call again with nextOffset') and a citing rule ('Give the user the article's url when you rely on it'), and implies the id comes from midas_docs_search. It stops short of naming an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool.

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