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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive hints. The description adds behavioral details such as returning the page title, URL, version, and full markdown, and that anchors are ignored. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is well-structured: purpose, usage, return value, negative usage, and alternatives are presented in a logical order. It is detailed yet concise, with no redundant phrasing.

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?

The description covers when to use, when not to use, what is returned, and how to handle version matching. It even mentions the need to match the user's package.json version, providing sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without an output schema.

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?

The schema itself provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (url with examples and anchor note, version with enum and default). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: reading the full markdown of a single Capacitor documentation page. It also differentiates itself from siblings like search_docs by noting that it returns complete pages rather than snippets, and mentions the exact domains it covers and excludes.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use after search_docs to read full pages, do not use to find pages, and do not use for non-capacitorjs.com domains (with alternative tools named). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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