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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description usefully adds that examples are verbatim, not run, not translated, and do not make live requests. It also discloses return shape hints like available_languages, source lines, and pagination.

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 four compact sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information about filtering, return values, or non-behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names returned fields such as available_languages, source lines, and pagination. The schema supplies page and locale details, though limit/offset behavior could be clearer.

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 50%: page, locale, and language have schema descriptions, while kind, limit, and offset do not. The description clarifies the language/kind filters and pagination, but does not explain limit/offset semantics beyond the schema's numeric bounds.

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 verb and resource: get verbatim fenced examples from a page, with language/kind filtering and no execution. It is clearly distinct in substance from read/list/search siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 intended use is implied by 'examples from a page' and the filterable language/kind fields. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against smspva_docs_read_page, search, or list_pages.

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