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

With annotations covering safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: publication is re-checked on every read, private/withdrawn bases return 404, no cached files after withdrawal, and a security instruction to treat uploaded text as untrusted data. This is exactly what a lower bar with annotations should reward.

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?

Sensible front-loading with the core verb+resource first, but the description sprawls into iframe embedding guidance and character limits for search that feel tangential to this specific read tool. Several sentences could be trimmed, and the security note is buried at the end.

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?

Covers the important behavioral details (publication checks, 404 semantics, no caching) and includes a security note. Given only two simple 64-char ID parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is fairly complete, though the embedding guidance overlaps with sibling search/reader tools and could be tighter.

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 both base_id and document_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, making 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+resource: reading the original source linked by an OKF concept, with clear scope on published bases only. It's clear what it does, though it doesn't distinguish itself explicitly from the many sibling read tools (public_read_base_original, public_read_base_doc_source, etc.), so it falls short of a 5.

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 context ('Published bases only', 'No account required', 'private or withdrawn base returns 404') but never explicitly says when to use this vs. the numerous sibling read tools like public_read_base_original or public_read_base_concept. Usage is implied from the resource type but not stated as guidance.

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