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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's scope and even its deliberate omissions, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-freedom or other behavioral details; the 'List' framing implies a read operation without being emphatic.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and immediately give the usage context. All every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition.

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?

The tool has no arguments and an output schema exists, so the description only needs to say what the tool is for and when to call it, which it does completely.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter ambiguities for the description to resolve.

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: 'List the sources this server covers, their limits, and what it deliberately omits.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the search/read sibling tools.

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 'Call this when unsure whether a lookup belongs here or with the official AWS Knowledge MCP Server,' giving a direct when-to-use condition and pointing to the appropriate alternative.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses client-rendered builder.aws.com bodies are not retrieved, that titles from URL slugs are flagged in meta.title_source, that repost.aws content is rebuilt from schema.org, that kiro.dev uses a markdown twin, and that long pages are truncated with an explicit resume marker. This is unusually 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?

The description is front-loaded with a single-sentence summary, then uses a compact bulleted dispatch list for the distinct URL types, and closes with the important truncation behavior. Every sentence contributes unique information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given that an output schema already exists and the three parameters are fully described in the schema, the description does not need to restate return-value details or parameter defaults. It covers everything else an agent must know: which hosts are supported, what to expect from each, the client-rendered caveat, and the pagination/resumption mechanism.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema, particularly that long pages contain an explicit marker telling the agent which start_index to use next, and that the URL's host determines the extraction behavior. This is meaningful but not a large amount of added parameter detail.

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 opening sentence states a specific action and object: 'Fetch a page from a supported source and return it as markdown.' The host-based bullets further define exactly what each URL type yields, and the tool is clearly distinct from its siblings (search_aws_knowledge and list_sources), making it easy for an agent to know this is the content-fetching tool.

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 practical, source-specific usage guidance, such as not paraphrasing builder.aws.com content and resuming long reads using the returned start_index. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with its siblings, though the schema states the URL comes from search_aws_knowledge, so the intended workflow is clear but slightly implicit in the description itself.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers: parallel source querying, degraded single-source errors becoming entries in `errors` rather than failing the call, intentionally short snippets, the Builders' Library redirect quirk, and the caveat that Builder Center results carry no article body. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs to calibrate expectations.

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 long but each paragraph earns its place: purpose, in-scope uses, exclusions, a redirect quirk callout, fail-degrade behavior, and a follow-up routing to read_aws_content. It is front-loaded with the purpose statement and organized in clear sections. There is minor redundancy (the Builders' Library is mentioned in the in-scope list and again in the callout), but the callout adds vital context, so the verbosity is largely justified.

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?

This is a search tool with only 3 parameters and an output schema, and the description covers everything an agent needs: what to search, when to search, when not to search, what each source maps to, failure behavior, and what to do with the results (pass URLs to read_aws_content). Combined with schema + output schema coverage, nothing material is missing.

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 real value: it maps source values to intent ('repost' → troubleshooting threads; 'kiro' → steering/hooks/specs/MCP config; 'builder' → Builders' Library and community write-ups), explains why `builder` is non‑obvious in the redirect paragraph, and gives advice on how to proceed from the (short) snippets. It doesn't add much for `limit`, but the source semantics are significantly enriched.

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 opening sentence explains the specific action and scope: 'Search AWS knowledge sources that the official AWS Knowledge MCP Server does not cover.' It then enumerates the concrete resource categories ('repost', 'kiro', 'builder'), and contrasts itself with both the official server and its sibling read_aws_content, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool is and is not.

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 is exemplary: it gives a 'Use this for:' list with concrete examples (error threads, Kiro config, Builders' Library), then a 'Do NOT use this for:' list (service docs, API references, AWS blogs, What's New, etc.) with the explicit alternative recommendation: 'the official AWS Knowledge MCP Server ... is the better answer for them.' It also routes follow-on behavior to read_aws_content. Nothing is left to inference.

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