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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is 'live', 'respecting robots.txt', and restricted to 'official Swiss domains'. These go beyond annotations, though it does not address rate limits or error behavior. No contradictions.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and key constraints. No wasted words; every clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and boundaries.

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 read-only fetch tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (live fetch, focus passages, domain restriction). It does not mention pagination or error handling, but these are likely covered by the output schema and are not critical for calling the tool. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 67% (focus and url have descriptions; max_chars does not). The description clarifies 'focus' by referencing 'passages around `focus`' and reinforces the url domain constraint. However, max_chars is not mentioned, and the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema description of that parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch the current text'), a clear resource ('official Swiss page'), and the output ('return the passages around `focus`'). It also specifies the domain restriction, distinguishing it from search and other tools. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 implies a use case—reading a specific page—and the sibling 'search_official_info' is clearly the search counterpart. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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