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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail that the annotations do not: pages are 1-based and doc_id is a slug-style identifier. It does not say what happens with out-of-range pages, how many pages exist, or whether results are stable, so it adds context without being 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 tight sentences with no filler, and the resource identification is front-loaded before the paging rule. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the usage routing an agent would want.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two-parameter surface is simple. However, for a paged retrieval tool the description never explains how paging terminates or how it relates to the sibling list/search tools, leaving a real gap in the retrieval loop.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does explain both params meaningfully: doc_id via concrete examples, and page via the 1-based note (the schema only supplies a default of 1). It stops short of giving the page size or valid page range, which would have made it fully self-sufficient.

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 concrete resource (one page of a companion document) and clarifies scope with the doc_id format (e.g. 'constitution-2026', 'acts-2026'). The verb is carried only by the name/title rather than the description, and it does not contrast itself with ic_get_act, ic_get_section or ic_search_companion, so it falls 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus ic_list_companion, ic_search_companion or ic_get_act, and no mention of how a doc_id is first obtained. The doc_id example and the 1-based page note imply the intended flow (list/search, then fetch a page) but nothing is stated explicitly.

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