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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real value by stating that the page is 'public' (no auth needed) and that the response is raw markdown, which tells the agent what format it gets back rather than rendered HTML.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the parameter explanation following. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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 the action, the input format, and the return format, which is close to everything needed. It does not mention failure behavior for a bad or nonexistent path, a minor but real gap.

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 already documents that the path accepts an optional leading slash or .md suffix. The description's example '/community-stack/issuer2/getting-started' usefully anchors the expected shape, but it adds little beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Return the raw markdown for one public docs page.' The 'raw markdown' and 'one page' framing implicitly sets it apart from search_waltid_docs, but it never names the sibling, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader must infer this is the fetch-one-page tool while search_waltid_docs handles discovery queries. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives like get_waltid_llms_index or search_waltid_docs.

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