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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: private or withdrawn bases return 404, no cached files after withdrawal, and a security warning to treat uploaded text as untrusted rather than instructions. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields, though return format is not described (nor is an output schema present).

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?

Sentences are dense and front-load the core purpose, but the middle section drifts into iframe embedding rules and search pagination limits (3–160 characters, 20 results per page) that belong to a different operation. Every sentence has content, yet the scope is not tightly focused on the read.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers access level, error behavior (404), caching/withdrawal semantics, and a prompt-injection warning. The main gap is that it never states what structure the returned concept/source/hash takes.

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 base_id and document_id documented as 64-character IDs returned by the API), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint detail for the two parameters, making the baseline 3 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 an OKF concept with source and hash') and adds scope ('Published bases only. No account required.'). However, with many sibling readers (public_read_base_source, _markdown, _original, _index, etc.), it does not explain how a 'concept' read differs from those, leaving the agent to guess at the distinction.

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?

'Published bases only' and 'No account required' imply the context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not versus the sibling read/source/search tools. The iframe/embed guidance is a separate usage note rather than routing guidance between alternatives.

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