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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the content is returned as Markdown and by giving the concrete set of available pages. This goes beyond what the annotations and schema alone convey.

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 no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the list of valid slugs is integrated directly, making the whole definition easy to scan and act on.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly: the valid slugs and the Markdown return format. Annotations cover safety and idempotence, and there is no output schema requiring return-value explanation. Nothing essential 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?

The input schema only says slug is a string with minLength 1, providing no semantics. The description compensates by listing the valid slug values, which is the critical missing information for calling the tool correctly. It does not explicitly say 'slug must be one of these', but the mapping is strongly implied.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a policy/about page and specifies the return format as Markdown. It enumerates the exact page slugs available, which makes the resource concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_article or get_provider, but the domain is clear enough.

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 by listing the available policy and about pages, which tells an agent when to pick this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of get_article, get_provider, or search, nor does it give exclusion criteria. The guidance is present only by inference from the listed slugs.

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