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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: it fetches the .md twin, accepts URL/path/slug forms, truncates long pages, and supports offset/limit pagination.

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 four focused sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: accepted inputs, page coverage, truncation behavior, and a sensible pairing workflow.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers return format, accepted inputs, page scope, and pagination. An agent has enough context to select and call it correctly, including knowing to search before fetching.

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 carries the burden and it largely succeeds. It fully explains the path parameter's accepted input forms and explains how offset and limit are used for pagination, though it does not define bounds or special values.

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 names the exact verb 'Read' and the resource 'gps.press page as clean Markdown', then enumerates the page types it covers. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that fetch specific datasets.

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?

It provides an explicit workflow: pair with search_site() to find a page, then read it here rather than guessing contents. It does not spell out when not to use this tool versus other sibling fetchers, but the context is clear.

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