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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behaviour, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: the 40,000-character cap, the next_offset continuation token for truncation, and the disclosure that text is returned fenced as untrusted data (a prompt-injection safety signal an agent needs to know).

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?

Three sentences, all earning their place: purpose and payload first, usage routing second, trust-boundary caveat last. Nothing is redundant and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does: catalogue record, text excerpt, and pagination token. Minor gap is that it does not describe what the catalogue record contains or whether further pages are fetched with the same id plus next_offset.

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 single id parameter is fully documented in the schema with format and example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that the id is an archive id, adding no new syntax or constraint information; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: retrieve one document by archive id, and specifies the payload (catalogue record plus up to 40,000 chars of extracted text). It does not clearly differentiate itself from the sibling tools get_document and get_document_text, which appear to overlap heavily with this behaviour.

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?

"Use to read a document found by search" gives one clear usage context and implicitly points at the search sibling as the discovery step. However, it offers no exclusions and says nothing about when get_document or get_document_text would be preferred, so the routing decision against those siblings is left to inference.

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