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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-annotation context: the return format is 'Full Markdown' and includes an 'as-of date,' which helps set expectations without an output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs the return format, resource, parameter source, and freshness marker into one efficient statement.

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 one-parameter read-only fetch with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is returned and that it carries an as-of date. It could optionally clarify what the as-of date means or how large the Markdown may be, but no critical calling information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example path. The description reinforces that the id comes from search, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 resource and output: 'Full Markdown of a supercyclehq.com page by id from search, with its as-of date.' It distinguishes this retrieval tool from discovery tools via 'by id from search,' though the description itself is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb phrase.

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 phrase 'by id from search' implies the id must come from a search result, giving useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like search or search_stocks, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites in a direct way.

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