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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description contributes the return format ('full text ... as Markdown'), which matters because there is no output schema, though it says nothing about behavior for missing or invalid routes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the required input, then the scope limit. No sentence is 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 with full annotation coverage, this covers purpose, input format, and return type. The remaining gap is error behavior for a path outside the site or a non-existent page, which the description leaves unaddressed.

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 value beyond the schema by giving concrete example paths (/en/pricing, /en/how-it-works), which reveals the localized route structure that the schema's generic 'starting with /' does not.

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 the specific resource ('the full text of one page of polarjay.com as Markdown'), which is clear and concrete. It is a generic page reader, but it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_pricing or get_product, which serve structured subsets of the same site.

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?

'Only pages of polarjay.com' is a scope constraint, not guidance on when to pick this over get_pricing or get_product. Usage is implied (reach for this when you need raw page text), but the alternatives are never named or excluded.

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