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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: old docs.agentfront.dev URLs are mapped to pages here, and a very long page is returned as its introduction plus sections to read one at a time. It could say more about what an invalid path returns, but the added context is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then the input conventions, then usage. It is dense with semicolon-joined clauses but every sentence carries information; the only minor cost is that the anchor/URL rules take a re-read to parse.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does it well: Markdown output, single-section mode, and the intro-plus-sections split for long pages. Combined with the version default note, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains that path accepts a bare path, a frontmcp.dev URL, or an old URL that gets remapped, and that a #anchor or section selects the section (with section overriding the anchor). It also clarifies version defaults. Genuine value on top of the schema.

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+resource: returns a FrontMCP docs page as Markdown, or one section of it. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming search_docs, lookup_api and list_pages as the tools that produce a path, making its role as the 'read the page' step 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use: after search_docs, lookup_api or list_pages has produced a path, or when you already hold a docs URL. It also names the alternatives that feed it, so an agent knows the routing rather than inferring it.

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