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

Consistent with readOnlyHint: true (a retrieval operation). Beyond the annotation, it discloses the behavioral constraint that only latest-published-version pages are accessible and the project-context prerequisite. It doesn't describe error behavior for invalid slugs or IDs, a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. Sentence 1 front-loads the core purpose, sentence 2 clarifies the version constraint, sentence 3 supplies the discovery tip and prerequisite. 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 read-only getter with no output schema, it covers the essential operational context: what is retrieved, the version constraint, the prerequisite, and how to obtain the slug. Minor gap: no mention of error/not-found behavior, but acceptable for this tool type.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by directing the agent to search_portal_docs to discover pageSlug values—semantic information not present in the schema. It adds nothing about documentationId, but the schema already states it's a public Id (Guid).

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 a clear verb ('Retrieve'), names the specific resource ('a single PUBLISHED documentation page by slug'), and states the output format ('with its full Markdown content'). The emphasis on 'PUBLISHED' and 'by slug' distinguishes it from siblings like get_doc_page and list_documentations.

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?

Provides actionable when-to-use guidance: 'Use search_portal_docs to discover slugs' routes discovery, 'Requires project context (call set_context first)' states the prerequisite, and 'Only pages from the latest published version are accessible' implicitly signals when not to use it (e.g., historical revisions belong to get_doc_page_revision). It stops short of enumerating all alternative tools.

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