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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: output is markdown, it mirrors the app's localized labels, and there are two content granularities (TOC vs single section). It does not mention size or truncation limits, which is a minor gap for an open-world documentation fetch.

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 core capability is stated in the first clause, before the section inventory. The long section list is functional rather than filler, though it duplicates the enum values already present in the schema, so some of it does not earn its place twice.

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 an output schema present, the description need not describe return structure, and it still usefully says the payload is markdown. Both parameters and their defaults are covered. The only omission is any indication of size limits or whether the TOC is affected by locale.

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 both enums are already documented. The description goes beyond that by pairing every section id with a human-readable title (e.g. worthToday (How Items Are Valued)), which meaningfully helps an agent pick the right section. The locale parameter adds little beyond the schema's own 'App language, for the labels a person sees in it'.

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 names a specific resource (the How to Use guide) and states exactly what is returned: the table of contents or one section rendered as markdown. It also specifies that content quotes the app's own button and field labels, which tells an agent what kind of content this is. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools, though the documentation domain is obviously distinct from the price/rate siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for answering 'how do I do X in the app' questions. Nothing states when not to use it, that omitting section returns the TOC (that lives in the schema), or how it relates to any alternative source of help content. No alternatives among the siblings are named.

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