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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: default return is a ~1,500-character excerpt with source links, and full text is gated on a server-owner setting. It does not explain how offset interacts with that truncation, which keeps 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?

The critical information — the excerpt default and the full-text gating — is front-loaded in one tight sentence. The trailing Korean translation restates the same content without adding semantics, so the entry is slightly larger than it needs to be.

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 correctly discloses the return shape (excerpt plus source links) and the condition under which full text appears, which is exactly what an agent needs for a read-only fetch. The remaining gap is the undocumented offset parameter, but overall coverage is solid for a 3-parameter 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 coverage is only 33%: path is documented with a concrete example, but offset and max_chars carry no schema description. The description partly compensates by revealing the default ~1,500-character excerpt (matching max_chars' default), yet offset is never explained, leaving a real gap that the low coverage demands be filled.

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 ('Fetch one document by its path') and anchors the identifier's origin to the sibling tool wisdom_search, so an agent can distinguish this single-item fetch from the search that produces the path. No ambiguity about 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?

'path (from wisdom_search)' clearly positions this as the follow-up to a search, giving real context for when to reach for it. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer wisdom_search or wisdom_list_pillars instead), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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