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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no note on whether pages are static, cached, or versioned – so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 mandatory default ('Read the general guide first') is front-loaded, and every clause in the enumeration maps a page value to its content, so nothing is filler. It is a single dense sentence, but the density is justified by the seven-way enum.

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 one optional parameter at 100% coverage and an output schema present, the description needs only to explain page selection, which it does for every enum value. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the enum values are already listed, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds real semantic value by explaining what each enum value ('ios', 'ai-index', 'ai-parity', 'agents') actually contains, which the bare enum labels do not convey.

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 specific verb+resource ('Read the general guide') and then maps each enum value to the content it returns (browser React components, AI catalog, runnable assistant, etc.), so the agent knows exactly what the tool surfaces. It stops short of naming or contrasting the sibling tools (get_install, get_tokens, get_component), so it is not quite a 5.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing advice ('Read the general guide first') and describes what each page selection is for, effectively routing the agent among the enum options. There is no statement of when not to use this tool or which sibling to pick instead, which keeps it below a 5.

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