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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that — no authentication required and a conditional password requirement. Error or failure behavior (e.g. wrong password, missing doc) is not described, keeping it below a 5.

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 with zero filler: purpose first, then access model, then the conditional parameter note. Every sentence carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description effectively characterizes the return value as the document's stored Markdown source, which is sufficient. The one remaining gap is docCode's semantics, which neither the schema nor the description covers.

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 50%: the password parameter is described in the schema, but docCode has no description anywhere. The description reinforces the conditional semantics of password ('password-protected documents need password'), which is real added value, but it does nothing to explain docCode's format or source.

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+resource: retrieve the stored Markdown source of a document. The word 'raw'/'Markdown source' implicitly separates it from the sibling postmd_get_document, but that distinction is never made explicit, so an agent must infer it.

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 clear operational context: the endpoint is public with no API key, and a password is required only when the document is password-protected. It stops short of naming a preferred alternative (e.g. postmd_get_document for rendered content), so the when-not-to-use case is left implicit.

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