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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns the full text from beginning to end and preserves original wording without paraphrasing. This gives the agent a clearer expectation of the output.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action and resource, then immediately states the practical use case. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 tool has a single required parameter and an output schema present, reducing the need for return-value documentation. The description provides sufficient context for a simple read operation, though it could more clearly differentiate itself from the sibling get_page to fully remove selection ambiguity.

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 schema fully explains the 'id' parameter including acceptable forms (URL, path, Japanese text). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so with full schema coverage a 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 states a specific verb ('返します' - returns) and resource ('ページの本文' - page body text), making it clear this tool retrieves full page content. It provides a clear use case for exact verification, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_page, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 states when to use the tool: when needing to verify terms of service, privacy policy clauses, or usage instructions accurately without paraphrasing. This gives clear context, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among the sibling tools.

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