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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the return format (Markdown) and the URL/slug convention ('-vs-'), which implies a read-only operation. It says nothing about behavior for invalid or duplicate slugs, or whether the response is page content versus a reference to it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and the slug-joining convention both land immediately.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and return format adequately. It leaves unresolved whether the result is rendered page content or a path/URL, and how missing slugs are handled.

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% and the parameter's ordering semantics are already documented in the schema. The description's 'two or three' merely restates minItems/maxItems, adding little beyond the structured field.

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 ('Return the Markdown comparison page') plus the slug convention, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_page_markdown or compare_annual_cost, which is the main gap.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite plausible siblings (get_page_markdown for a single page, compare_annual_cost for cost comparisons). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name and 'two or three' phrasing.

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