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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, non-open-world profile, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that 'steps' and 'recipes' are large and require a two-step retrieval pattern to avoid oversized responses. It doesn't discuss truncation or formatting of returned content, which would earn a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the topic enumeration, then the operational caveat about large topics. No filler and every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what comes back (a section list vs. a section's content) and how to navigate the large topics. It is nearly complete for a docs-retrieval tool; only the fallback behavior for an unknown section key is unspecified.

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 only 50%, and the enum values for `topic` carry no schema descriptions; the description compensates by defining all four topic values. It also clarifies the intended interaction pattern for `section` (omit to list sections, supply a key to fetch one) beyond the schema's example.

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 and resource ('Read Fieldproxy's automation reference') and enumerates exactly what each topic contains, so an agent knows precisely what knowledge it retrieves. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling doc tools like get_widget_docs and describe_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?

Gives explicit procedural guidance: for the large 'steps' and 'recipes' topics, call without `section` to get the section list and then request one section. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over sibling documentation tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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