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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return value is the raw Markdown contract or one named section, but since an output schema exists that adds only modest value. No pagination or size caveats are mentioned.

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, front-loaded with the usage condition before the return description, with no filler. Slight overlap between 'inspecting... a specific auth.md protocol section' and the return clause, but 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?

A single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations needs little more than this. The description covers when to call it and what it emits; only the absence of sibling differentiation keeps it from being fully complete.

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 'section' parameter already carries an enum of nine values plus a default of 'full' with a description. The description's phrase 'the requested named section' merely restates the schema, adding no new meaning. 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?

States a specific resource (the auth.md public access contract) and a specific action (return the full contract or a named section). An agent can tell this is the auth-protocol reference tool, though the description never explicitly contrasts it with the sibling get_documentation_page or search_docs.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'Use this tool when...' clause naming three concrete situations: inspecting the public access contract, OAuth/agent authentication rules, or a specific protocol section. It gives no when-not guidance and never names an alternative for broader documentation needs.

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