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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the entire page body is returned (not a summary), which is useful, but says nothing about what happens when an unsupported path is requested or whether content is cached/static.

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 purpose and format before the path list. The path enumeration is dense but each entry is functional rather than padding.

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 covers the resource, the return format, and the valid inputs. The only real gap is error behavior for an invalid path, which is minor given the explicit whitelist.

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 only requires 'Path starting with /', so the schema baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by enumerating the concrete allowed route shapes and giving four worked examples, which materially narrows correct input construction.

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 resource (a LivaGlow page) and the exact return format (Markdown, full content), which distinguishes it from search_faq and search_guides that return matching snippets rather than a whole page. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 enumeration of supported paths implies the tool should be used only for those routes, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not to use it, and no pointer to alternatives such as search_guides for discovery versus this tool for retrieval.

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