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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the article text is capped at 20000 characters, the contentFormat field indicates the syntax, documents from other organizations return a bounded 'not found' result, and certain fields (organization ids, translator ids, deprecated slugs, embeddings, metadata) are never returned. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and edge cases.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and scope, and subsequent clauses add necessary constraints and exclusions without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers all essential context for correct invocation: ownership scoping, the 20000-character cap, the contentFormat field, the uniform 'not found' behavior for cross-organization documents, and the fields that are never returned. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to call the tool.

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% – each parameter (slug, locale, documentId) has a descriptive schema entry. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters; it only references output characteristics. Since the schema already carries the parameter documentation, the description meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one support document'), and clarifies scope ('owned by the authenticated Supovia organization'). It distinguishes itself from list_documents and search_documents by specifying it retrieves a single document with full text. The phrase 'including its article text' and 'contentFormat' clearly defines what is returned.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: retrieve one document. However, the description does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_documents or search_documents, nor does it state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It provides no exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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