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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read, and the description adds meaningful behavior by clarifying that the page body is excluded and that returned URLs are budget-aware. It does not cover pagination mechanics or authentication needs, but it adds useful context beyond the annotation.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the key outputs and the body-exclusion constraint without filler. Every phrase carries information about the tool's scope and return shape.

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?

Output schema presence means return values need not be explained, and the description adequately frames the output and read-only nature. However, with five input parameters and only 20% schema description coverage, the definition is not complete enough to guide correct invocation of the budget, locale, and path arguments.

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 only 20%, with just the cursor parameter documented in the schema, so the description should compensate for path, locale, byteBudget, and tokenBudget. The mention of 'budget-aware fetch URLs' hints at the budget parameters but does not explain their semantics, and path/locale remain entirely undifferentiated.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: discovering sections of a docs page by headings, anchors, hierarchy, line ranges, and fetch URLs. It implicitly separates itself from body-reading siblings by stating 'without returning the page body,' though it does not name a specific sibling tool.

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 phrase 'without returning the page body' implies when to prefer this over a full page read, but the description never explicitly states when to use it, when not to use it, or which alternative to choose. Usage must be inferred from the output summary.

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