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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the valuable constraint that it never returns customer records, which is a significant behavioral limit not evident from annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors like rate limits or error handling. No contradiction; it aligns with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action and input requirement, and includes a crucial limitation in the second sentence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no nesting) and the schema and annotations cover safety and parameters. The description adds the key scoping that it only returns public business info, not customer records. With an output schema present, the return format is handled. Minor gaps like whether it can return null or how errors are presented are not critical given the simplicity.

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?

The schema description provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', clearly explaining it is a document id from a search result with an example. The description restates the requirement to use the exact id, which adds minimal extra value but is not harmful. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the explanatory burden.

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 clearly states the verb 'read' and the resource 'full text of a document', and specifies the input is the exact id from a search result. It distinguishes from siblings like search (which returns results) and business_info (which likely returns broader info), but does not name these alternatives explicitly.

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 provides clear context: use when you have a document id from a search result. It implies not to use for customer records by stating it never returns them. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the context is sufficient given the sibling list.

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