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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what is returned (title, document type, dates, section list) and what is not returned (body content), which helps manage expectations.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, the second lists return values, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 only one parameter and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool returns, what it does not return (body content), and directs users to alternative tools for other needs. This fully equips an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.

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 covers 100% of the parameter information, providing the name, type, and example format for base_path. The description does not add further parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 tool retrieves metadata and a navigable section index for a GOV.UK page, specifying the resource and the exact data returned. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming govuk_get_section and govuk_grep_content for body content, making its unique role clear.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it says to use govuk_get_section to read a section's body and govuk_grep_content to search within the page body. This gives the agent clear decision criteria and directly addresses alternative tools.

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