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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-like behavior and the workspace config precedence, which is useful. However, it does not mention failure modes for missing/ambiguous ids or titles, nor what happens if multiple documents match a partial title.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and lookup modes; the second adds a concise, important project-resolution nuance. Every clause earns its place.

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 getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key lookup modes and project selection behavior. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing ambiguous or missing matches, but it gives an agent enough to make a correct call in the common case.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions at all (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does: documentId is a lookup key, title is a partial-title lookup key, and projectName provides project context with an explicit workspace override rule. It stops short of specifying mutual exclusivity or precedence between id and title.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('full text content of a specific document'), and the two retrieval routes (id or partial title). It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_documents and search_documents by focusing on retrieving one document's full content.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the user needs a document's full content and has an id or partial title. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the retrieval criteria imply the decision boundary.

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