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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: it resolves only `page` records, a resource URL yields NOT_FOUND, redirect-only records resolve to their target, unknown IDs yield NOT_FOUND, ~10-minute caching, per-IP rate limiting, and retry-on-5xx guidance. This is exactly the kind of failure-mode and operational context annotations cannot express.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then usage routing, then return payload, then edge cases and operational notes. No sentence is filler; each adds a distinct fact an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still briefly frames the return payload (body plus section, pillar, keywords, canonical URL). Combined with the ID resolution rules and rate-limit notes, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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% and already lists permalink/slug/record ID, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete format examples ('standards/gri-101', 'page:abc123') and, importantly, the resolution semantics of the parameter — which inputs resolve and which fail — giving it value above the schema.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Read one ESG Hub article in full') and immediately scopes the identifier forms accepted. It draws a clean line against the sibling get_related ('neighbours rather than its content'), so an agent can discriminate without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger conditions — 'once search_esg, search_content, or list_esg_pages has returned an identifier' — and names the alternative tool (get_related) with the condition that selects it. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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