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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the return shape differs from fetch and that this is a legacy endpoint, which is useful context, but it does not say how the shape differs or disclose any other behavioral traits.

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?

Front-loads the legacy status and the key differentiation from fetch in compact sentences, with no filler. Slightly verbose in restating the service identity, but every clause carries relevant context.

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 legacy read tool with no output schema, the description warns that the return shape differs from fetch but never explains how, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding whether the output is usable. It is otherwise adequate given the covered annotations.

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 there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents the url field (including that Japanese is acceptable). The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 action (returns page body) and resource (page) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fetch by noting the return shape differs. The legacy framing ('previous name feature, kept for those already connected') is clear, though the exact purpose beyond mimicking fetch is somewhat implicit.

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 names the alternative (fetch) and the condition that selects it ('use fetch for new use'), and explains why this tool still exists for backward compatibility. An agent knows precisely when to pick this vs the sibling.

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