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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses the return format (Markdown), included fields (source URL, canonical URL, language, update date), and constraints (no private content). This gives a full behavioral picture.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action, the second details return content and boundaries. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of fluff.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers what it returns, where the id comes from, and what it deliberately avoids. No critical information for correct usage is missing.

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 only defines id as a string with length limits, but the description clarifies that id is the stable id returned by search, giving it meaningful context. This fully compensates for the lack of parameter description in the schema.

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 states the action (retrieve), the object (complete public Markdown), and the scope (stable id returned by search). It also differentiates from siblings by noting it never retrieves arbitrary URLs or private content.

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 implies when to use this tool (after search) and explicitly states boundaries (never arbitrary URLs or private content), but doesn't directly compare to get_price or search. The workflow is clear but not fully explicit.

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