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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that version defaults to current, that text:true returns extracted plain text produced at put time, and that tenant_key is only required when no Authorization header is present. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention error cases or whether the read is safe, but the read-only nature is evident from 'Read'.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then packs the two most important behavioral nuances (version default and text extraction) into a compact clause. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 read tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key decision points: id vs name, version default, text flag, and tenant_key requirement. It doesn't describe the return shape, but with no output schema that would be useful; however, the tool is simple enough that an agent can infer the return from the parameters. The missing return-format note is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the id/name mutual exclusivity ('use name instead if you don't have it') and the tenant_key/Authorization header precedence, but these are also partially in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds only modest extra semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a document by id or name'), and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like host.docs.list, host.docs.delete, and host.docs.put. It also clarifies the default version behavior and the optional text extraction, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a document id or name and want to read it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context (host.docs.list for listing, host.docs.put for writing) makes the usage context reasonably clear. A brief 'use host.docs.list to enumerate documents' would have made it fully explicit.

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