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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that the content is 'indexed text' and limited to 'public resources', which clarifies what the agent will get and what access is required. It does not contradict annotations.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core action and scope, then provides the usage trigger. No filler, and every clause adds value. It is appropriately concise for a simple read tool.

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?

Given the output schema exists (though not shown), the annotations cover safety, and the parameter schema is fully described, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the input format. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly. It is complete for a read-only resource fetcher.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for the single 'path' parameter, including an example. The description reinforces the parameter's format ('site path or full URL') but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's action (read indexed text) and its resource scope (any public resource on the site, with an explicit list of types). It distinguishes itself from the many type-specific sibling getters by framing itself as a generic path-based reader, so an agent can tell it apart from get_playbook or get_framework without opening their schemas.

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?

It explicitly gives a usage trigger: 'Use this when search_site returns a path you want to read in full.' This tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It does not explicitly state when to prefer the specific getters over this generic one, but the phrasing 'whatever the type' implies it is a catch-all, which is a clear enough routing signal.

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