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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds the GET endpoint, persisted-document scope, and 'Free call' note, but it does not describe rate limits, auth-failure behavior, or other side effects. This adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 short sentences front-load the core action and endpoint, then provide prerequisites, return fields, and cost. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

For a single-required-parameter GET tool, the description combined with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema is sufficient. An agent knows what it retrieves, where the ID comes from, what it returns, and that the call is safe and free.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions and an example, and it already states that document_id comes from a window_context extraction. The description therefore adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a concrete resource ('persisted document'), and an endpoint ('GET /window-context/{document_id}'), and lists the exact return fields. This clearly distinguishes it from extract.* siblings and from claix.window_context.ask.

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?

It gives a clear precondition: document_id must come from an extraction with window_context, and it notes the call is free. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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