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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral boundaries: this is source material rather than guidance, and it deliberately does not answer individual, tax, or AML questions. It does not disclose output formatting or offset behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core content scope, and every sentence adds value. The list format and two short caveats are easy to parse and free of redundancy.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the description covers what content is returned and what the tool will not answer. No output schema exists, so a bit more return-format detail would help, and 'offset' semantics remain unexplained, but the overall picture is sufficient for basic correct invocation.

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 schema already documents the main 'page' parameter well, including slug/URL forms and exclusions. The description adds general topic context but does not clarify the 'offset' parameter, which is left undocumented at 50% schema coverage. No parameter information is repeated or contradicted.

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 identifies the resource (public IDF page content) and lists specific content categories: delivery, contact, how to buy, and purchase rules. It avoids tautology, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself from search_knowledge.

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 gives clear scope and explicit exclusions: it provides source data, not instructions, and does not handle individual cases, taxes, or AML. It does not name alternative tools, but the exclusions are concrete enough to prevent common misuses.

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