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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses the deliberate 404-vs-403 policy for forbidden ids, the 304 / `{not_modified}` conditional-read behavior, the fact that table rows are never returned, that project/page block ids are position-derived and must not be anchored on, and that the surface is provisional. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 primary behavior and organized by concern (return shape, table exception, error policy, conditional read, edit routing, provisional status). Nearly every clause earns its place, though the single dense paragraph with capitalized emphasis reads as an internal memo and could be broken into scannable segments.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the returned shape in detail, the important non-return (table rows), error semantics, mutability routing, versioning caveats, and instability warnings. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response without further discovery.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for two of three parameters: `node_id` is characterized as opaque with concrete formats (`nod_prj_<id>` / `nod_doc_<id>`), and `rev` is explained as enabling a conditional read returning 304 or `{not_modified}`. `_org` is left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving a real gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Open ONE node by its opaque id') and immediately enumerates what comes back: name, type, root trail with sibling crumbs, and page body as ordered blocks with stable ids. It also draws sharp lines against siblings: tables return column schema not rows ('rows have their own cursor-paginated surface') and writes go through `oto_node_edit` / `POST /api/me/docs`, so the agent can place this tool without opening another schema.

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?

It states concrete usage conditions and routes elsewhere explicitly: use `rev` for a conditional read, consult `non_servi` before concluding a node has no sharing or dependants, and treat `edit_surface` as where-to-write not whether-you-may. Alternatives are named with the trigger that selects them (rows surface for table rows, `oto_node_edit` for `node`, `POST /api/me/docs` for projects and pages).

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