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

Annotations already declare this tool read-only and idempotent, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the output is full page text in Markdown and includes a canonical URL for citation. No contradictions with the annotations.

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?

The description is two efficient sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and output format, then adds the necessary source-of-id context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple fetch tool, the description is complete: one parameter is fully documented, annotations cover safety and idempotence, and the output schema presumably covers the returned Markdown and canonical URL. The workflow dependency on 'search' is also explicitly stated.

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 single parameter is already described as 'A page id returned by search.' The description repeats this same constraint without adding new format or validation details, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema's explanation.

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 clear verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('a page of the Referral Flooring website'), and the output format ('as Markdown, with its canonical URL'). This strongly distinguishes it from siblings like 'search' and 'request_quote', which have different purposes.

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 description explicitly says 'The id comes from search,' which gives clear context that this tool should be used after a search has returned a page id. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple fetch operation.

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