Superstables

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations do not: the ordered enumeration behavior and the concrete set of fields returned, which matters because there is no 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?

One sentence, no filler, with the resource and the returned fields front-loaded. Every clause carries information and nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with rich annotations, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, ordering, and return contents adequately. Only the relationship to the search/read siblings is left implicit.

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% and the single 'under' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'omit for every page' default. The description contributes nothing additional about path scoping or path syntax, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the resource ('The docs pages') and the exact payload returned — title, description, URL, and markdown URL — in a defined order. The listing verb is inherited from the title rather than repeated, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with search_docs, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'In reading order' implies an enumeration/browsing use case rather than a targeted lookup, which weakly signals when to prefer this over search_docs. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and the sibling tools read_doc and search_docs are never named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and the description carries a lighter burden. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by enumerating the returned fields and noting the markdown format, but it says nothing about error behavior for missing pages or response size.

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?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads the output contract, the second gives the identifier format. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers what is returned and how to identify the page, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is routing guidance versus the sibling tools, which the description leaves unaddressed.

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%, so the sole parameter is already documented with examples. The description's example path and the schema's examples overlap heavily, adding little new meaning such as whether full URLs are accepted or how paths are normalized, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource (read one docs page) and states the return shape: markdown plus title, description, canonical URL and last-updated date. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_docs and search_docs by returning a single page rather than a collection, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The reader must infer that this is for fetching one known page and that list_docs/search_docs cover discovery, since neither sibling is mentioned and no conditions for choosing among them are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results are relevance-ranked ('best-matching') and carry URLs with page/heading/passage granularity. It stops short of anything about result counts, empty-result behavior, or ranking caveats.

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?

A single colon-front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the result shape is stated compactly after the core action. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and complete annotation coverage, this is nearly sufficient: the description carries the return-shape burden the missing output schema would otherwise leave. The only shortfall is the absent routing guidance against the two sibling tools.

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%: both 'query' and 'limit' are documented with examples and a default in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax guidance (phrases, operators, exact-match behavior) beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search over the docs') and even describes the result granularity (pages, headings, passages). It implicitly separates itself from list_docs and read_doc by emphasizing search, but never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 'search when you have a query rather than a known doc', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to list_docs/read_doc for browsing or full-page retrieval. A one-line routing hint would have closed the gap.

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