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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: a missing document and an unpublished document return the identical not-found answer, which tells the agent not to infer publication state from the error.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the identifying purpose plus the sibling linkage come first. The behavioral caveat is placed second where it belongs.

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?

Single required param, full schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile. The description adds the return shape at a high level and the error semantics, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

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 the schema already carries the UUID pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance the schema cannot: the id must be one that search_documents returned, which is the only real semantic risk with this parameter.

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 (get one public document card plus its schema.org node) and scopes it to an id. It also names the sibling that produces that id (search_documents), so an agent can distinguish it from the search/browse tools without opening a schema.

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?

Clear usage context: this is the follow-up call to search_documents, using an id from that result set. No explicit exclusions or comparison against alternatives such as get_page_content_with_schema or get_schema_context, so it stops short of 5.

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