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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the useful fact that theory documents carry their sources, but it says nothing about document size, whether results are truncated, or how the optional section parameter changes what comes back.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The trailing phrase "with their sources" is slightly tangential for a one-sentence definition, but nothing is wasted.

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-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the essentials are covered. What is missing is orientation an agent would still want: how large these documents are, whether reading is expected in one pass or by section, and how this differs from cokarta_instructions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add real meaning by explaining that the two document values correspond to app behavior versus nutrition guides with sources, which the schema alone does not clarify. It contributes nothing about the section or approach parameters, so it does not earn a 4.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Returns one of CoKarTa's documents") and then decomposes the resource into its two flavors: app usage explained from the person's side, and nutrition guides with sources. That maps cleanly onto the two allowed document values. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling cokarta_instructions, which sounds like it might cover overlapping ground.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the read path for reference material, but the description never says when to reach for it rather than cokarta_instructions or a sibling like read_diary. There are no explicit exclusions or preconditions, and nothing says how to choose between the app and theory documents.

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