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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety behavior. It adds value by disclosing that the tool returns 'full content plus a list of available sections' and emphasizes slug format constraints, which informs call behavior beyond 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The slug examples and routing note are placed appropriately and earn their place. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, how to format the slug, and how to route when the slug is unknown. No required information is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the slug formatting rule already present in the schema ('Folder-qualified slug with no extension... Never a repo-style path, never .md') but adds no new meaning for scope or companyId beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Read a Markdown knowledge file by slug') and differentiates itself from siblings like list_knowledge by specifying the slug-based read mechanism. It also gives concrete slug examples and explicitly defines what it is not (never repo-style paths, never '.md').

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to load guidelines, SOPs, or strategies before doing work that needs to reference them') and direct routing to an alternative ('Don't know the slug? Call list_knowledge first'). This clearly distinguishes when to use this tool versus list_knowledge.

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