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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return medium ('as Markdown') and the effect of a section ('gives only that part of the page'), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not discuss errors or unknown-page behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded sentences that establish the return shape before the input mechanics; every clause carries information. The comma-heavy enumeration of page contents is slightly dense but not padded.

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 correctly explains what comes back (Markdown page content) and how to obtain valid ids, and annotations carry the safety profile. The only real omission is failure behavior for a nonexistent page or section, which is minor for a read tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'page' accepts either an id or a component name, and that 'section' narrows the output to one '##' heading area rather than changing the resource. That is genuine semantic lift over the field descriptions.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('One page of the reference, as Markdown') and enumerates exactly what a page contains (parts, props, examples, CSS variables, classes, accessibility). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_block, get_tokens, get_chart or get_rules, which the agent can rule out without opening schemas.

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 routes the agent to the right inputs explicitly: 'Takes a page's id from list_components, list_guides or search_docs, or a component's name.' That is clear context for when to use it and what precedes it. It stops short of stating exclusions or when to prefer a sibling (e.g. get_block) instead.

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