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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description correctly focuses on behavior: what the read returns (full text, sections, comment threads, folderId/folderName) and the version semantics (omit versionId = latest draft, pass one = that version plus its comments). It stops short of pagination/size limits, which would matter for full-text reads.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then return shape, then version rules, then exclusions. Every sentence carries information, though the return-shape sentence partially duplicates the output schema and the version guidance echoes the schema.

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 with an output schema present, the description is complete enough: purpose, routing, version behavior, and result contents are all covered. Only operational details (pagination, truncation of full text) are absent.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, and the description's version guidance largely restates the documentVersionId schema text. The one added nuance is the emphasis that omitting the version reads the latest draft versus a pinned version, but that is also already in the 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and a precondition ('Read one document you already have an id for'), which immediately separates it from search. It further distinguishes itself from search and fetch_folder by name in the closing sentences.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('you already have an id'), explicit when-not ('Not a search — use search for a question or a topic. Not a folder listing — use fetch_folder'), and it names the tool to obtain version ids (list_document_versions). Routing is unambiguous.

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