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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds return-format detail (full Markdown text) and the notable input flexibility that an https://symone.fr URL is also acceptable, which is genuine context beyond the annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and return type, with the path-provenance detail following. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, input provenance, accepted input forms, and return format. Behavior for an invalid path or missing page is not mentioned, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds real meaning: the accepted value is specifically what search_docs returns, and a full symone.fr URL works as well — the URL form is absent from the schema's examples.

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 (return) and resource (full Markdown text of one SYMONE documentation page), with scope bounded to a single page. It also names the sibling tool that produces the path, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from search_docs.

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?

Clearly positions itself downstream of search_docs ("path returned by search_docs"), which tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g. 'do not use for listing pages'), so it is not a full when/when-not statement.

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