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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by stating the response is Markdown and that the accepted slugs are limited to the enumerated list, consistent with openWorldHint false. Error behavior is not disclosed, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single compact sentence with a colon-led list. There is no filler, and the most important information (Markdown output and valid pages) is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description provides the response format and the complete set of valid arguments. No output schema exists, but 'as Markdown' sufficiently conveys what the caller receives. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema only defines slug as a non-empty string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by listing every valid slug value and even clarifying that editorial-policy relates to the scoring method, effectively providing the missing enum documentation.

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 title provides a specific verb and resource ('Get policy page') and the description clarifies the output format (Markdown) while enumerating the exact set of pages. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_article and get_provider.

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 implies usage for static policy/about pages by listing valid slugs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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