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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by stating it returns the entire page body from start to finish and preserves exact wording, which goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 composed of two purposeful sentences: the first states the core behavior, and the second gives concrete use cases. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, the exactness guarantee, and when to use it, leaving no critical gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 parameter is already well documented as a page URL or path. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, 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 the tool returns the full body text of a Zippa page, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_page, which may appear to serve a similar purpose.

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 provides clear usage context: use this when you need the exact, unparaphrased content of pages such as feature lists, manual steps, or legal terms. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly compare with alternatives like get_page or search.

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