getGravvDocPage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and clearly communicates a read-only fetch operation. It does not mention edge cases like invalid slugs or response format, but the core behavior (returns full text) is transparent.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states the action, the second gives usage guidance. No wasted words and the key information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter provenance. It does not explicitly state the return type (e.g., plain text vs. markdown) or error behavior, but this is a minor gap 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 100% and the slug parameter already has a strong description with examples. The tool description adds the important semantic link 'as returned by searchGravvDocs,' telling the agent where to obtain the slug.

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 and resource: 'Fetch the full text of one Gravv documentation page by slug.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling searchGravvDocs by emphasizing full text vs. excerpt.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when an excerpt is not enough' and lists concrete use cases (worked examples, request/response bodies, flow diagram), which implies when not to use it and which alternative (searchGravvDocs) to prefer.

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