Read a Roku doc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them — no contradiction. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the 11.7 KB threshold triggers an outline instead of content, and sections can be requested directly by number or heading text. This is exactly the kind of conditional behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: core function, conditional large-document behavior, and workflow optimization. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is zero 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it covers all modes: full markdown for small docs, numbered outline for large docs, and section content when `section` is passed. Minor gaps remain — error behavior for nonexistent paths and the interaction when both `full` and `section` are supplied — but nothing that would cause a misdirected call.

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. The description adds value beyond the schema by tying `section` to the outline mechanism and explaining the search-to-section workflow, which clarifies how the parameters interact in practice rather than just what they mean.

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: 'Return the markdown content of a single documentation page by path.' The phrase 'single... by path' clearly separates it from the sibling tools (search, list, refresh), so an agent can pick it without opening their schemas.

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 gives clear workflow context: for documents over 11.7 KB, expect an outline and pass `section` to read a part; and if search results already name the best-matching section, you can skip the outline fetch entirely. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, but the search-results reference effectively encodes the efficient call path.

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