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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the full text is returned (not a snippet) and lists metadata fields, but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or rate limits beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. The enumeration of return fields is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but the sentence remains efficient overall.

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 simple read operation with rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and prerequisite. The only minor gap is not clarifying its relationship to the similar sibling get_knowledge_document.

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 single id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'by the id search returned' mirrors the schema description without adding new syntax or format details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Read) and resource (knowledge document) with scope (one, in full, by id). This distinguishes it from list and search siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling get_knowledge_document.

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?

Implies usage when an id has been returned from search, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative tool for browsing or listing documents.

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