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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns the page body 'from beginning to end' and that it targets the SEO対策研究室 site, but it does not reveal other behavioral details such as formatting, limits, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler. The main behavior is stated first, followed by practical use cases and the required parameter format. Every sentence earns its place.

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, read-only fetch operation with a single fully documented parameter, an output schema present, and safety annotations available, the description is complete. An agent has enough information to select and call this tool without additional context.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage: the single required parameter id is fully explained as the page URL or path, and the description also says to specify the URL or path. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action: return the full body text of a specified page on the SEO対策研究室 site. It also names concrete use cases (reading article procedures/evidence, checking survey percentages). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_page, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: after finding articles via search or when verifying survey result percentages. It does not state exclusions or explicitly compare with alternatives like get_page, but the provided use cases are specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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