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

readOnlyHint=true already marks it non-destructive; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: without page, a long document returns a TOC, and the response ends with a navigation hint. No contradiction.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the pagination workflow. Every clause earns its place; no repetition of the schema.

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-only, paginated file tool with an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious pagination behavior and navigation loop. It lacks only explicit guidance on the two required identifier parameters, which limits completeness.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It adds useful semantics only for page (omit → TOC, page=N → section content), while the required project_id and filename are not described beyond their schema names.

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 says 'Текст файла из базы знаний проекта, страницами' – a specific read action on a project file with pagination. It is clear, but it does not name or contrast sibling tools like list_files or read_project_dialog, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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 concrete procedural guidance: omit page to get a table of contents for long documents, then call with page=N and follow the hint at the end. This is clear context, but there are no explicit exclusions or 'use X instead' guidance for siblings.

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