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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the 25,000-character truncation, the explicit response flag, and the required behavior (tell the person instead of reasoning as if the full text were present). It also discloses the context cost of browsing page by page. Annotations are consistent with the description.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, truncation caveat with required action, and workflow warning. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information and the most important usage constraint is front-loaded.

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-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what is returned, the edge case (truncation), how to position it in a workflow, and when not to use it. No missing information prevents an agent from invoking it correctly.

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%: both project_id and document_id already have descriptions, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'by id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because no parameter clarification is needed beyond 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb ('Reads'), a resource ('one document or Wiki page'), and the identifier ('by id'), making the operation unmistakable. It also says 'in full' and later qualifies with the 25,000-character truncation, giving a precise contract.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call this only after search_documents or list_documents_brief have pointed at the right page. The final sentence draws a clear when-not boundary ('not a way to browse') and warns about context burn, so there is no ambiguity about its role.

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