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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations: revocation also blocks search, originals, Markdown, OKF and ZIP downloads even with an existing session or key; sharing a collection extends to current and future files in the owner's referenced bases; other owners' bases expose published files only; initial grant requires the owner's session with origin and CSRF checks; org API keys stay within existing grants; responses are private, no-store. No contradiction with annotations, and the read-safety profile is enriched considerably.

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?

Purpose is correctly front-loaded, but the body is a dense six-sentence run of platform policy prose with no structure, and several sentences (collection sharing grants, other owners' bases) read as generic authorization rules rather than behavior specific to reading a single OKF concept. Information-dense but not tightly curated to this tool.

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, three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and a clear annotation set, the access-control semantics are covered thoroughly. With no output schema, the description leaves "source and hash" and the actual returned payload unexplained, and OKF is never expanded, so a small gap remains.

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 all three required IDs are already documented in the schema (including the list_knowledge_teams provenance hint and the 64-character ID format). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Read an OKF concept with source and hash"), which is far better than a tautology. It never explicitly contrasts itself with read_base_concept or public_read_base_concept; the team scoping is only inferable from the following sentence about team access, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 lays out access preconditions (current account membership, product access, resource sharing, OKFIndex required per the schema) but never states when this tool should be chosen over read_base_concept or its other siblings. Usage is implied by the team-scoping discussion rather than spelled out as an if/then rule.

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