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

With annotations only covering the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds substantial context the annotations do not: per-request membership/product/sharing evaluation, revocation blocking search and downloads even with an existing session, CSRF/origin requirements on the initial grant, and private, no-store caching. These are genuinely useful operational traits.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, but it is then followed by a long policy block covering collection sharing, publishing, and ownership that applies broadly across the API rather than to this specific read. Several sentences feel tangential and could be trimmed without losing tool-specific meaning.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the important access and caching behavior an agent needs. It does not describe the returned Markdown format or response handling, but the resource name makes the payload clear enough.

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 IDs are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the org requires active membership and OKFIndex, but adds no format or usage detail beyond what the schema states. 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?

"Download document Markdown" states a specific verb and resource, and the team scope is implied by the name and membership language. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many near-identical siblings (read_base_markdown, public_read_base_markdown, team_read_base_original/index), so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which variant to pick.

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 explains access-control behavior but never states when to use this tool versus read_base_markdown or the public_* equivalents. There are no exclusions or routing conditions, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name alone.

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