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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds return-format context the annotations cannot: output is Markdown and 'One page' (implying bounded, non-paginated output), plus the effect of section narrowing the response to a single part.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then how to obtain the page value, then the section modifier. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 carries the burden of describing the return shape (Markdown page content) and the section-narrowing behavior. It does not address output size limits or failure behavior for an invalid id, which are the only remaining gaps for a two-parameter 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning: it names the three tools that produce valid page ids and gives concrete examples (Compare, DataTable for page; Props, CSS variables for section). This goes beyond the schema's generic 'id or component name' phrasing.

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 ('One page of the reference, as Markdown') and enumerates exactly what that page contains (parts, props, examples, CSS variables, classes, accessibility, or a guide). It is clearly separable from the sibling get_block/get_chart/get_rules/get_tokens resources and from the list_* discovery tools it consumes ids from.

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 routes the agent to list_components, list_guides, or search_docs for the id, and explains the section parameter as a way to narrow to one part of a page. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g. bulk retrieval vs search_docs), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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