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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the required dvs:read scope, a 'full write permission' requirement, and a prompt-injection warning that DVS text is data. That is real added value, but return shape and pagination/truncation behavior remain unaddressed.

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-loaded with the action and object, followed by prerequisites and a safety note. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 partially compensates by saying the result includes field IDs and display names. Permission scopes and the trust-boundary note round out what an agent needs to invoke it safely. The only remaining gap is the undocumented dvs_document_id semantics.

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 50%, and the only described parameter is 'section', whose enum is already documented in the schema. The description's '(task or project)' merely restates that enum. dvs_document_id is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description cannot compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Read one') and resource ('DVS document'), clarifies that documents are tasks or projects, and states what is returned (field IDs and display names). This clearly separates it from filesfm_dvs_list_documents, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Implicit guidance is present: 'Read one' implies use this after locating a document ID, rather than for enumeration. However, it never states when to prefer filesfm_dvs_list_documents or filesfm_dvs_get_fields, nor any preconditions such as first resolving the document ID.

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