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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read context. The description adds the behavioral trait 'without loading all chunks,' which provides some value about resource usage, but does not disclose return format or error behavior. This aligns with annotations without 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential action, resource, and a key behavioral qualifier efficiently.

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 one-parameter read tool with safety annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and resource. However, with no output schema, it leaves 'metadata' vague and does not explain what exact summary or metadata fields are returned, nor any prerequisites like document ownership.

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 compensate, but it only refers obliquely to 'a document' and does not explain document_id beyond what the parameter name implies. No guidance on identifier format, origin, or examples is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('summary and metadata for a document'), and the phrase 'without loading all chunks' differentiates it from the sibling get_chunk, indicating a higher-level retrieval. This clearly distinguishes the tool's core function.

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 a clear context for use: when a concise summary or metadata is needed and full chunk loading is not desired. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, stopping short of full usage routing.

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