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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the output format (ARTIFACT_DOCUMENT_ID, NODE_ID, TITLE, CITATION_URL, etc.), the behavior of expanding TOC nodes into child blocks, and the inclusion of a CITATIONS_IN_THIS_RESPONSE list. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect from the invocation.

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 a single dense paragraph but well-structured with clear sequences: input method, output format, expansion behavior, and citations. Every sentence adds value, though it is longer than strictly necessary. Still, it avoids redundancy and effectively front-loads the core purpose.

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 lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format, including field names and meanings, citation link behavior, and node expansion. This gives the agent everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret results without ambiguity.

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 67% (node_id and node_ids have descriptions, artifact_document_id does not). The description compensates by explaining how node_id and node_ids relate to TOC/NODE_ID lines, and it clarifies their usage with examples like 'pf2a, page12'. artifact_document_id is implied through the context 'in a filing,' though not explicitly described.

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 the tool's function: 'Return content for one or more navigation nodes in a filing.' It specifies the resource (navigation nodes within a filing) and the action (return content), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_filing_toc and list_filings, which handle different aspects.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining how to pass node ids from TOC lines and the distinction between single and batch reads. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose (reading content) implies when it should be used versus TOC retrieval. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' benchmark.

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