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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context: output format (Markdown with metadata and outline) and a critical security caveat that documentation content is untrusted data, not instructions. This goes beyond annotations but stops short of discussing error behavior or path resolution.

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, both essential: the first states the operation and output format, the second provides a security reminder. Information is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and there is no 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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It clearly defines scope and output, and the output schema covers return value details. It could mention how to discover valid paths (e.g., via list_documents), but this is a minor omission.

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 already fully documents the path parameter with 'Canonical, root-relative public document path' (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond 'public document' and 'one,' so it does not need to compensate. 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 and resource: 'Read one public document as Markdown with metadata and outline.' It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'one public document,' which contrasts with section-level reading, listing, and searching. The verb 'read' is clear and not a tautology.

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 implies a use case (reading a single public document) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like read_document_section or list_documents. No conditions or exclusions are given. The distinction is left to inference from the tool name and sibling names.

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