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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: the response is markdown, and the pricing doc embeds the live model table (useful for judging freshness/overlap with get_pricing).

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?

A single short sentence with the key facts (one doc, markdown, valid ids) up front and no filler. It repeats the enum values from the schema, which is mild redundancy, and it is a fragment rather than a full sentence.

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-only, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers output format and available docs adequately. The gap is routing: for a doc-lookup tool sitting beside get_pricing and search_docs, the absence of any disambiguation leaves the selection ambiguous.

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% and the enum already lists the valid ids, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by stating what one of those values yields ('pricing includes the live model table'), which helps the agent choose the id and compare it with get_pricing.

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?

Names a specific resource (an agent doc) and its return form (markdown), and enumerates the four retrievable docs. It does not name a verb or explicitly position itself against the overlapping sibling get_pricing, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings like get_pricing and search_docs that plausibly overlap with the 'pricing' and doc-lookup cases, the description leaves the agent to infer which tool to pick.

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