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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral constraint—refusing password-protected, unpublished, and noindex content—and clarifies that it returns Markdown, text, or metadata. However, it omits details like error behavior for nonexistent IDs, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core operation, then adds the key refusal behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy 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?

For a simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers the input types, output formats, and refusal conditions. The main gap is the absence of explicit error or 'not found' behavior, but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is only 50%, but the description adds value by explaining 'numeric ID, slug or same-site URL' for the identifier and mapping 'Markdown/text/metadata' to the format enum. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it does not fully document edge cases like malformed URLs or unsupported formats.

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 ('Resolve'), a clear resource ('public WordPress item'), and the accepted identifier types ('numeric ID, slug or same-site URL'). It also names the output formats, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from listing tools like list_services or search_site.

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 implies when to use it: when you have a numeric ID, slug, or URL for a specific Oleba page and want its content. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so the agent must infer the boundary between this and sibling tools like get_service or get_realization.

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