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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format ('markdown version'), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not say what happens for an invalid or unknown path (error vs. empty result) or whether output is truncated for large pages.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and return format, followed by the routing hint. No filler, and the examples are compactly inlined rather than listed as prose.

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 no output schema, the description conveys what comes back (markdown) and where valid paths come from. The only material gap is failure behavior for a malformed or nonexistent path.

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 baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by enumerating the concrete path shapes (/platforms/<x>/, /failure-modes/<id>/, /repair-costs/, etc.), which tells the agent what a valid path actually looks like beyond the schema's generic 'Site path or full URL' note.

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 ('Return the markdown version of a Torque Index page') plus the lookup key ('by its path'). The enumerated example paths make the resource scope concrete, and 'Use the URLs returned by the other tools' distinguishes it from the discovery-oriented siblings (list_platforms, lookup_vin, find_part_number).

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?

'Use the URLs returned by the other tools' gives explicit routing: this is the content-fetch follow-up after discovery. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., don't use for search or ID resolution), but the context for use is unambiguous.

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