Read a Tiendanube / Nuvemshop doc page

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's added value is the host allowlist ('nuvemshop.dev or tiendanube.dev; other hosts are refused') and the fact that content is fetched live as Markdown. Those are real behavioral facts not present in the annotations. It does not say what happens on an unknown page or missing section.

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 with zero filler: the capability and host constraint come first, the routing guidance second. Nothing is repeated and every clause carries information.

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 read-only fetcher with a fully documented 4-parameter schema and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: return format (Markdown), host restriction and call sequencing. The only gap is failure behavior when a URL, locale or section does not resolve.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter already documents its format, enum values, default and char limit, so baseline 3 applies. The description's 'by URL or site path' and 'one section of it' merely restate what the url and section properties already say, adding no new syntax or semantics.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read a page of the official docs, or one section of it') plus the two accepted addressing modes (URL or site path). The scope is narrow enough ('docs') and the sibling search-docs is implicitly contrasted with reading, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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?

Explicitly sequences usage: invoke after search-docs or lookup-endpoint, or when the user pastes a docs link. That gives clear positive conditions and quietly excludes the search use case. It stops short of an explicit when-not statement (e.g. 'do not use to search or to read non-Nuvemshop hosts beyond the refusal note').

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