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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the return representation (Markdown), the bounded set of acceptable paths, and that it returns full page content, which complements rather than contradicts the 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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first and then provides the necessary path details. The path list is long but entirely relevant and formatted compactly with examples. Every part earns its place.

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 tool's low complexity (one required parameter), rich read-only annotations, complete schema coverage, and the description's path enumeration plus output format, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly. An output schema is absent, but the description already communicates the return format.

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 provides only a minimal description ('Path starting with /') with 100% coverage, but the description adds substantial value by enumerating all supported paths (with dynamic :slug examples). This helps the agent construct valid parameter values far beyond what the schema alone offers.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('full content of a LivaGlow page'), and the output format ('as Markdown'). It enumerates valid paths, making the tool's scope unmistakable and differentiating it from sibling search/overview tools without opening the 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?

The description gives clear context about when to use this tool by listing all supported paths with concrete examples. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the path list effectively scopes usage and implies this is the tool for retrieving full page content rather than searching or computing prices.

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