Read the API reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context: "No API key required" and that it is "Generated from the published OpenAPI specification." It does not detail the return format, but for a read-only docs tool with annotations, this is adequate.

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 three well-structured sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds authoritative sourcing, and the third lists the sections. It is information-dense with no filler.

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-only documentation tool with one optional parameter fully described by the schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary context. It even mentions that no API key is required, which is relevant for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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's parameter description already covers the sole 'section' parameter fully, including default and 'all' value. The description reinforces this by listing all enum values, which is helpful but not entirely new information. Baseline for 100% coverage is 3, and the small addition justifies a 4.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: "Read the Writavo Content API reference." It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools, which all operate on specific resources (articles, categories, etc.). It also lists the covered sections, further specifying what content the tool provides.

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 clearly explains what the tool does and notes that "No API key required," which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternative tools or mention exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance about alternatives.

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