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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the single-document scope; it says nothing about what happens when the path is missing or invalid, or how much content is returned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the provenance hint appended where it is most useful. No filler or restated title.

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 full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers the essentials. It lacks only error behavior for a nonexistent path, which matters somewhat given there is no output schema to describe the return shape.

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% and includes a format example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond that by documenting provenance — the path is a value previously emitted by kb_search — which the schema does not state.

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 (read) and a precise, bounded resource (one document from the knowledge base) scoped by path. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from kb_search/kb_list, which enumerate rather than retrieve a single document.

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 parenthetical 'as returned by kb_search' tells the agent exactly where the path argument comes from and establishes the natural search-then-read workflow. It does not name an exclusion (e.g., 'use kb_list to enumerate' or 'use kb_recall for semantic lookup'), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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