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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds real context on top: the data comes from 'verified public sources' and returns descriptions rather than live access. It stops short of anything about caching, freshness, or section-selection behavior.

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 lines that are efficiently front-loaded: purpose first, valid values second, scope boundary last. The section list is compact and the boundary sentence earns its place. Slightly more precision (labeling the list as the section argument) would make it tighter still.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and complete annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient: the agent knows the verb, the valid section values, the data provenance, and the negative scope. The missing piece is any signal about how it differs from sibling page/guide readers.

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 0% and the section parameter has no enum, so the schema alone gives the agent no idea what values are legal. The description compensates well by enumerating the four valid sections (overview, ai_guides, investors, human_review), effectively supplying the missing enum. It does not note that the parameter is optional with a default of 'overview', nor tie the list explicitly to the parameter name.

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 ('Read current website capabilities') and enumerates the concrete sections returned (overview, ai_guides, investors, human_review), which makes the scope unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like mrx_read_page, mrx_list_public_pages, or mrx_search_guides, leaving the agent to infer which one to pick.

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 supplies a scoping exclusion ('not access to chat, bookings, uploads or private cases') that tells the agent what this tool is not for, which is genuine usage guidance. It never names an alternative tool or the condition under which a sibling should be preferred, so the routing question is only half answered.

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