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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds useful behavior beyond that — output is Markdown and site chrome is stripped, which tells the agent the page text is already cleaned. It omits failure behavior for an invalid slug (e.g. whether it errors or returns empty), which is the remaining gap.

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 short sentences with zero redundancy; the output format and chrome-stripping detail lead, followed by the slug provenance. Every clause 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?

With one fully documented parameter, annotations covering safety, and an output schema that carries return structure, the description covers what an agent needs to call it. Only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already gives example slugs, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: slugs are expected to originate from sibling tools and may contain slashes, which clarifies format expectations for nested paths.

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 (return one page), resource (agent-manager.dev docs), and output format (Markdown with site chrome removed). It names the sibling tools only as slug sources rather than contrasting scope, so the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 line 'The slug comes from search_docs or get_reference' encodes the intended workflow: discover a slug first, then fetch that page. There is no explicit 'do not use this to search' exclusion, but the routing context is clear enough for an agent to pick correctly.

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