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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that content comes back as markdown, but says nothing about truncation, size limits, or what happens if both id and url are supplied. With annotations and an output schema carrying most of the load, this is a modest addition.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the purpose front-loaded and the sequencing rule second. Nothing is padding.

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 tool with annotations, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The one real gap is that zero parameters are required, and the description never says at least one of id or url must be supplied or how conflicts resolve.

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 both parameters are documented with their intended source ('Article id from search_guides', 'URL ... used when id is unknown'). The description adds no further meaning about identifier precedence or what to do when neither is provided, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Read), resource (one guide, article or policy page), and return format (full text as markdown). The mention of excerpts vs. full text lets an agent distinguish it from search_guides without opening either schema.

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 names the predecessor tool (search_guides) and the condition that selects this one: the excerpt is not enough to answer. The inverse case — excerpt suffices, so don't call this — is directly implied by that condition.

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