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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the response is "plain sections plus its FAQ" — but says nothing about failure modes for malformed/off-domain URLs, truncation of long pages, or locale fallback when a path language is unavailable.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what is read, where the URL comes from with an example, and which sibling to use instead. Nothing is repeated and the scope statement is front-loaded.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, valid input provenance, return shape, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 schema already supplies the path example, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description usefully ties valid values to search_guide_articles output, but adds no format or language-path rules beyond what the schema shows; baseline 3 fits.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("read the text of a udansa content page") with an explicit enumeration of what counts as a content page (guide article, city/style page, terms, privacy, cancellation, about us). It also names the sibling tools for the cases it does not cover, so an agent can distinguish it from get_course_details/get_event_details without opening a schema.

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?

States where valid input comes from ("a URL or path from search_guide_articles") and explicitly routes non-content pages elsewhere: "For courses and events use get_course_details / get_event_details." Both the use case and the exclusion with named alternatives are present.

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