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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what is actually returned: HTML annotated for in-place text editing plus a content revision. It stops short of explaining what the revision is used for or the size/shape of the payload.

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 short sentences, zero filler, audience constraint front-loaded before the return description and the alternative-tool pointer. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool the agent is told not to use, this is nearly complete: audience, return content, and the correct substitute are all present. The only gap is that without an output schema it doesn't clarify the annotated-HTML or revision semantics, though that matters little given the tool is out of scope for the assistant.

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 both the slug and account parameters are documented in the schema, including the list_accounts pointer. The description adds nothing further about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns a doc's HTML annotated for in-place text editing plus a content revision') and explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_doc_html. An agent can immediately tell this is a UI-facing read, not an assistant-facing one.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('not by the assistant') and names the correct alternative for the agent's use case ('Assistants read docs with get_doc_html instead'). This is exactly the routing guidance the definition needs.

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