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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: what full mode emits (TrMD with [[segment]], [[row N]] anchors, ID-grid structure) and the cost distinction between modes. It stops short of disclosing failure modes or size limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action and mode semantics, with no filler. Each clause carries operational information (default, format, bounding, template reuse).

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 no output schema, the description must describe return content, and it does: metadata + heading outline + item counts for outline mode, and TrMD structure with anchors for full mode. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly with no open questions.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description meaningfully enriches this by clarifying that mode defaults to outline, that fromOrder/toOrder are row orders obtainable from the outline or a prior read, and that documentId may be a template UUID. That relationship between outline output and range parameters is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 resource (document or template), then distinguishes the two operational modes (outline vs full) and names the sibling tools it relates to (traceable_doc_create, traceable_workspace_templates). An agent can tell this apart from mutating siblings immediately.

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?

Explicitly says mode=outline is the default when exploring and mode=full for content, plus when to bound a full read with fromOrder/toOrder and when to pass a template id (to inspect before cloning). This is when-to-use guidance with named alternatives, not inference.

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