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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the chunking mechanism (8,000 characters, offset), and the snapshot nature of the data ('Las cifras son del día en que se leyó la página'), which is beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is three compact sentences, each earning its place: first states what it does and chunking, second states the intended use, third notes data freshness. No redundancy or filler, and the key info is front-loaded.

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?

For a 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage context, pagination, and data freshness. An agent has enough information to call it correctly, and the annotations handle safety. Nothing critical is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining offset usage ('usá offset para seguir') and the specific chunk size (8,000 characters), which is not in the schema. This clarifies the pagination semantics beyond the schema's basic parameter 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 clearly states it retrieves the text of a page from cambio-uruguay.com, including its sections, in 8,000-character chunks with offset for continuation. It explicitly connects to search_site, differentiating its role as the tool for precise quoting after search, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

The description says 'Para citar con precisión lo que search_site encontró' (to quote precisely what search_site found), giving a clear context for when to use this tool. It implicitly suggests alternatives via the reference to search_site but does not list other exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, so a 4 is appropriate.

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