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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: output is clean markdown and every page ends with official sources and a data date, which tells the agent to expect verifiable citations.

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 what the tool returns before the usage note, with no filler. The English and Hebrew text is duplicative, but that is a reasonable accommodation for a Hebrew-language site rather than waste.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description usefully flags the sources/data-date footer. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior is unmentioned.

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 single parameter is already described, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds a form the schema omits – the '.md' URL variant – so it contributes a small amount of meaning beyond the structured field.

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 (returns the full text) and resource (one page), and enumerates the accepted reference forms: an id from search, a site URL, or a '.md' URL. This distinguishes it cleanly from search, which produces those ids in the first place.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it to quote a guide or a data page accurately' and ties its input to 'an id from search', which implicitly routes the agent to search first. No when-not-to-use condition is stated, so it falls short of 5.

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