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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the default guide covers common components, while component selection returns focused schemas and examples with companion components automatically included.

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 with no wasted language. The default behavior and component-selection behavior are both stated efficiently.

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 tool has one optional parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety semantics. The description supplies the remaining needed context: what the guide contains, what the default returns, and how component selection changes the result.

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 schema already documents the optional components parameter and enum. The description still adds value by explaining the effect of selecting components: focused schemas and examples rather than the default guide, with companion components included automatically.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns Docmino's MDX authoring documentation for document and page content, including component props and examples. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which manage documents, projects, shares, and pages rather than authoring guidance.

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 explains the two usage modes: omit components for the default common-component guide, or provide component names for focused schemas and examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the intended usage context is clear.

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