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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds little beyond that—it confirms the read operation and the dependency on govuk_get_content, but does not describe return format, pagination, or error behavior. With annotations covering mutation risks, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage note is directly actionable. Every sentence 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description fully captures the workflow: get anchors first, then fetch a section. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters fully described. The description reinforces the role of 'anchor' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema 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 'Get the HTML content of one named section of a GOV.UK page', specifying the exact resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'one named section', and the usage note explicitly references govuk_get_content.

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?

Explicit sequential guidance: 'Use govuk_get_content first to get the list of available section anchors, then call this with the anchor'. This names the alternative tool and provides clear when-to-use context, leaving no ambiguity about the required prerequisite.

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