Read Doc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context absent from structured fields: what the response contains (endpoint signatures, parameters, curl examples) and the semantic difference between overview, full, and index modes.

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 tight sentences: purpose, valid input with examples, special values, and return shape. Zero filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the enumerations.

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 return-value burden and does so ('full Markdown, including endpoint signatures, parameters, and curl examples'). For a single-param read tool with strong annotations, nothing needed 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%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by expanding the unenumerated special values with their actual meaning – 'overview' (the llms.txt orientation), 'full' (entire flat reference), 'index' (topic list) – which the schema only names without explaining.

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 precise verb+resource ('Read a Porkbun documentation page as Markdown') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to list_doc_topics as the source of valid topics, rather than duplicating that listing capability.

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?

Routes the agent to list_doc_topics for topic discovery and explains the three special modes, which is clear usage context. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with search_docs (the other doc-reading sibling), so the choice between lookup-by-topic and keyword search 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.