gb_get_govuk_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these by explaining the API mapping, the confirmed live status, and content-specific differences (PDF attachments vs. body_html). It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 compact and purpose-first, using three sentences to convey the function, API endpoint, and important content-type caveats. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having only one parameter, the description covers the key behavioral nuances (attachments vs. body_html) and references the output schema implicitly by noting where content appears. With a detailed schema, output schema, and strong annotations, this is a complete and self-sufficient tool description.

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 description provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, including its source, format, and examples. The tool description itself adds no further parameter semantics, so with high schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('one GOV.UK document') and enumerates the covered content types (tribunal decision, HMRC manual section, CMA case). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gb_get_act or gb_get_case by scope and source.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool (fetching a single GOV.UK document) and gives direction on obtaining the path from gb_search_govuk results. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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