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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the Markdown output format and enumerates valid paths, but it does not disclose error behavior for unsupported paths or any authentication/rate-limit context.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact, necessary enumeration of supported paths and examples. Every sentence and example earns its place by compensating for the lack of enum constraints in the schema.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the return format (Markdown) and valid path space, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It stops short of mentioning invalid-path behavior, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description substantially exceeds the schema by listing supported path patterns (/faq, /ratgeber/:slug, /tasse/:slug, etc.) and concrete examples, giving the agent much stronger guidance on valid path values than the generic 'Path starting with /' schema 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?

The description states a clear resource (LivaGlow page) and output format (Markdown), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_faq or search_guides, leaving a small ambiguity about when full-page retrieval is preferable to search.

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 supported path list and examples imply the scope of valid use, which is helpful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives such as search_guides or search_faq, so usage selection remains largely inferred.

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