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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the 'public' qualifier, which implies no auth is needed for exposed content. It says nothing about behavior for unknown/private paths, truncation of long pages, or redirects.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose and page scope front-loaded and the invocation detail second. Every clause contributes.

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-required-param read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and input format adequately. The remaining gap -- how to obtain a valid path, and what happens on large or missing pages -- is minor but real.

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 sole parameter already documents the path-or-URL duality. The description's only added value is a concrete example path (/research/warranted-agency), a marginal elaboration over the schema text. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 any public protoperfect.io page as Markdown' -- and enumerates the page families (research papers, docs, glossary, FAQ, Studio, Games, About, legal). That makes the scope unmistakable, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like define_term (glossary terms overlap) or list_documents.

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?

It tells you how to invoke it (pass a path or a full URL) and implies when it applies, but gives no exclusions and never routes to the obvious alternatives. An agent that doesn't already know a path gets no hint that list_documents or search_documents is the way to discover one.

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