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

While annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds important context: this is a deprecated legacy alias, returns content like fetch, but has a different return format. It could be more specific about that format difference, but the deprecation notice is valuable.

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?

The description is concise and front-loads the legacy/deprecation context, then routes to fetch. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the parenthetical clarification could be seen as slightly redundant with the opening phrase.

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?

The description covers deprecation, usage guidance, and safety via annotations, and the schema covers the parameter. However, since there is no output schema, the vague statement that the return format differs from fetch leaves a meaningful gap for anyone who actually needs to call this legacy tool.

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 input schema already fully documents the single required url parameter, including that Japanese text is allowed. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns a page's body in the same way as fetch, and the title explicitly identifies it as reading page content. It also distinguishes itself from fetch by noting the different return format and its legacy status.

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 explicitly directs new users to use fetch instead and notes that the tool is kept only for those already connected. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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