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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that includeUsages should be set before deleting a snippet and that project context is required, going slightly beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 three sentences and every sentence earns its place: it states what is returned, clarifies includeUsages behavior, and gives usage guidance with a pointer to the sibling tool. There is no fluff or irrelevant detail.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully explains that the response includes full Markdown content and rowVersion. It also mentions the prerequisite ('Requires project context') and the alternative tool for browsing, making the operational context sufficiently complete for a simple get-by-id operation.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is met. The tool description adds a little extra context for includeUsages ('also list the pages embedding it'), but the parameter descriptions already convey their meanings. No parameter is left unexplained, but the description does not substantially enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves one snippet with its full Markdown content and rowVersion. It explicitly names the resource ('snippet') and the specific operation ('Get'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides direct usage guidance: 'Use this when you already have the snippet id' and points to the alternative for browsing: 'to browse a version's snippets use list_doc_snippets.' It also explains when to set includeUsages, making the tool's intended use clear.

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