Read a Mushi docs page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the return shape ({ title, url, markdown, truncated }), the 8,000-character cap with a pointer to read more, the requirement that pages be indexed, and the note that no API key is needed. These details go beyond the annotations and are not contradictory.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return format. Every sentence adds value: the input source, the return structure, the truncation behavior, the indexing caveat, and the usage timing. No fluff 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?

For a single-parameter tool with a detailed output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers all necessary aspects: input source, output format, size limits, prerequites (indexed pages), authentication (no API key), and when to use. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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% (the page parameter is described as 'A url from search_mushi_docs, or a docs route such as \"/quickstart/mcp\"'). The description adds a concrete example route and reinforces the two accepted input forms, which slightly enriches the schema but is largely redundant. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, but the example and explicit mention of the search source push it to 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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch one official Mushi docs page as Markdown'. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the source (url from search_mushi_docs) and the trigger condition ('Use after search_mushi_docs when an excerpt is not enough'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use after search_mushi_docs when an excerpt is not enough' directly names the sibling and the condition for selection. Also states the constraint 'Only indexed docs pages resolve', giving the agent a clear precondition. This is more than enough to route the agent correctly.

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