read_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining that `config` reflects the live instance settings (rate limits, wait ceiling, dedup window) and by summarizing what each manual section contains. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 dense but well organized: the primary action comes first, each page is explained in a single clause, and the usage guidance is one final sentence. Every part earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only documentation tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, most page options, and when to use the tool. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented `skill` enum value, which an agent could encounter in the schema and not know how to use.

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 provides only an enum of page names with a default, so the description carries the burden of explaining each value. It gives meaningful semantics for five of the six enum values, but notably omits the `skill` page entirely, leaving one parameter choice unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Fetch the service's own documentation." It then enumerates the distinct page topics (manual, patterns, interop, auth, config), which clearly differentiates this meta/documentation tool from the sibling tools that perform domain operations.

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 final sentence, "Use this for anything these tools do not cover," explicitly states when to invoke this tool as a fallback. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but as the documentation tool it is clear that siblings are the domain tools and this is the reference resource.

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