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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, yet the description still adds real value: 'cheap', no body returned, and notably that a missing document yields null rather than an error. It stops short of describing the multi-tenant refusal behavior, which is only documented in the schema for tenant_slug.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the cheap/no-body distinction, then the null-return edge case, then the alternative. No sentence is redundant.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with a full output schema and 100% schema coverage, nothing material is missing; the description even preempts the surprise of a null result. Its only gap, get_meta disambiguation, is a minor edge case rather than a missing 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 description coverage is 100%, including a detailed note on when tenant_slug is required and what happens on omission, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only alludes to tenant scoping via 'in the tenant' and adds no new meaning for the slug parameter.

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 ('slug-based lookup', 'minimal metadata (no body)') and explicitly contrasts with kb_documents_get for full bodies. It does not disambiguate from the very similar kb_documents_get_meta sibling, which appears to be the closest alternative for metadata-only reads, so it falls short of a clean 5.

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?

'Use kb_documents_get for the full body' gives an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it. The slug-first use case is implied by the name and by 'slug-based lookup', but there is no guidance on choosing this over kb_documents_get_meta or when the slug is unknown.

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