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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds beyond that: pages are 1-indexed, the entire page text is returned, and multi-document sources are disambiguated via the document parameter with a pointer to get_subsidy attachments.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns and the indexing convention, the second handles the multi-document case. No filler, and the most important information leads.

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, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps (indexing, document selection, sibling relationship), though it omits error behavior such as an out-of-range page.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for two of three params: pages is clarified as 1-indexed, and document is explained as the filename to set when multiple documents exist, with the source of that list. It leaves the pages array shape and subsidy_id semantics unexplained, but the latter is self-evident.

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 — returns the full text of a specified guideline page — and pins the scope with '1始まり' indexing. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the read step that follows search_guideline and by pointing to get_subsidy for the document list.

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 says to use it when reading pages before/after those found by search_guideline, which gives the agent a clear trigger and a named alternative for the discovery step. It does not state exclusions (e.g., when search_guideline alone suffices), so it falls short of a full 5.

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