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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that — that `include` collapses multiple fetches into a single round-trip and that `revisions`/`attachments` have scoped returns. It doesn't discuss response size or failure modes, so not a 5.

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 short clauses, zero filler. Purpose comes first, the include-array behavior second, the sibling routing last — a logical front-loaded order.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the parameter-level details (tenant_slug multi-workspace rule, revision paging) live in the schema. The description is complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor gaps like not hinting at the multi-tenant requirement.

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 adds framing the schema lacks: the `include` array is a round-trip optimization and each member bundles a specific related entity. That is genuinely useful semantics layered on top of an already well-documented schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a single document') plus the scope-defining detail 'with its full markdown body', which cleanly separates it from sibling get_meta. An agent can pick this over kb_documents_get_by_slug / kb_documents_get_meta from the first clause alone.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use kb_documents_get_meta when the body is not needed.' It also explains why to use the `include` array (bundling related rows in one round-trip), which is a usage decision, not just a schema restatement.

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