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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, reducing the burden on the description. The description adds context beyond annotations by noting the dependency on govuk_get_content and clarifying that the tool returns HTML content. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but with strong annotations and an output schema, this level of additional context is sufficient.

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 two short sentences, immediately stating the core function and then providing the workflow. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant phrases, and every clause contributes to understanding how to use the tool. This is a model of concise, structured documentation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters), strong annotation coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the prerequisite call, and the source of the anchor parameter. There are no significant gaps that would leave an agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters: 'anchor' and 'base_path'. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already states; it merely echoes the workflow. Therefore, the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description offers no additional parameter-level insight, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 opens with 'Get the HTML content of one named section of a GOV.UK page,' which uses a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('HTML content of one named section'), and clear scope ('one named section'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by tying the anchor to govuk_get_content, making the tool's niche unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use govuk_get_content first to get the list of available section anchors, then call this with the anchor of the section you want to read.' This provides a clear workflow and prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the phrase 'one named section' implies alternatives for whole-page content, so it is useful but not exhaustive.

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