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

The description reinforces the annotations by explicitly stating 'READ-ONLY' and 'changes nothing', matching readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. It adds little beyond those annotations, and it does not disclose versioning behavior or other potential gotchas, though the output schema covers return shape.

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 two short, front-loaded fragments with the most important behavioral signal ('READ-ONLY. Returns data, changes nothing') placed first. There is no filler, and every phrase pulls its weight.

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?

The tool is well-covered overall because the detailed input schema and output schema carry versioning, OCR, and return-shape information, while the description states the read-only contract. The narrative is slightly incomplete at the selection level because it doesn't connect this tool to po_documents_text_get or explain where pofid comes from, though the parameter descriptions partially compensate.

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%, and the parameter descriptions are already rich, covering pofid encoding, exact versus latest resolution, and pages_ocr behavior. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 starts with 'READ-ONLY. Returns data, changes nothing' and names the specific resource and information returned: document identity, processing state, and compact trust. This clearly distinguishes it as a metadata/details getter rather than a write, search, or OCR-text retrieval tool.

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 conveys that this is for read-only retrieval of document details, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as po_documents_text_get or po_documents_search; routing hints are largely left to the parameter descriptions.

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