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 genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: the response is a single page rendered as Markdown, and content is English-only, both of which shape how an agent should consume the output.

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 telegraphic sentence with zero filler; the resource and return format are front-loaded ahead of the id-sourcing hint. It reads as a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 the essentials: what comes back (Markdown), how to obtain a valid id, and the language of the content. Only edge behavior (unknown or stale ids) is unstated, which is minor at this complexity.

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 0% — the id property is an untyped-in-prose string with only maxLength 100 — so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the source of valid ids (list_docs) and supplies a concrete example of the expected id format. It does not state whether the id is case-sensitive or how failures surface.

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 documentation page) plus the return format (Markdown) and the identifier source (id from list_docs, with example "docs-quickstart"). This clearly separates it from the sibling list_docs, which enumerates pages rather than fetching one.

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 phrase "by id from list_docs" establishes the dependency chain and implicitly routes an agent to list_docs first when it lacks an id. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or what happens on an unknown id, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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