Get doc page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the exact failure contract ("An unknown package or a path that does not exist returns {\"error\": \"unknown doc path\"}; the two cases are not distinguished") and the offline/no-filesystem-escape boundary. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return shape, then error/boundary behavior. Slight redundancy between "it does not search" and the framing of the tool as a retrieval-by-exact-path operation, but no sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotations, everything an agent needs is present: how to obtain arguments, what comes back, what failure looks like, and the offline/scope boundary. Return-value detail that the output schema already covers is not required, and the description's listing of fields is just convenient reinforcement.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real coupling constraint: both arguments must be taken from a prior search_docs result, which tells the agent not to invent values. It does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema's examples, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ("Return the full text of one bundled Guard documentation page") and immediately contrasts with the sibling it is most likely confused with: "it does not search" distinguishes it from search_docs. An agent can pick between get_doc and search_docs without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule ("Use this after search_docs when a snippet is not enough"), states the negative case ("it does not search"), and explains where the arguments originate ("The package and path come from a search_docs result"). This is a complete when/when-not/alternative statement.

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