Read Material Design 3 documentation

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the output format (English Markdown), live nature, and pagination via cursor. The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations are consistent, and the description enhances understanding.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and key features. Every piece of information is relevant, with no 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?

Given the 4 parameters (one required) and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core use case but omits details on parameter usage (e.g., how cursor pagination works, maxCharacters role). Output schema exists but unknown; overall, it is minimally adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description must explain parameters. It only hints at 'section selection' and 'cursor pagination' for the section and cursor parameters, leaving path and maxCharacters unexplained. This is insufficient compensation.

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 tool reads a live Material Design 3 document as English Markdown, specifying section selection and cursor pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools list_md3_docs and search_md3_docs, which serve different purposes.

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 usage for reading documents with section and pagination options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_md3_docs. No exclusion criteria or comparative guidance is provided.

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