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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint false, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a legacy function, retained for backward compatibility, and its return format differs from fetch. However, it does not specify what the return format actually is, which is a gap for a tool without an output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's legacy status and primary guidance (use fetch for new). Every sentence serves the deprecation message and nothing is wasted.

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 simple, one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, deprecation status, and the recommended alternative well. The only gap is that it does not explain the actual return format despite lacking an output schema, but the guidance to use fetch instead mitigates that for most use cases.

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 100% and the single url parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that Japanese paths are acceptable. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: it returns the page body, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fetch by noting the return shape differs. It also identifies itself as the former name function of XR Memorandum, giving clear identity. An agent can tell this apart from fetch without opening either schema.

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 explicitly says to use fetch instead when using this newly, and that this tool is kept only for existing connections. This provides both a when-not condition and an alternative, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to select.

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