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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the read includes unpublished draft state and the result reports how the document differs from its published version. That is genuine added context about what the call returns and its place in the edit/publish workflow.

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 core action and scope, then the workflow relationships. No filler; every clause carries 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 one required param, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is returned (current markdown including unpublished), the diff-against-published behavior, and how to obtain a valid document target.

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 100% with a single documented parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description reinforces the target lookup ('find it with list-documents') but adds no format or value details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a document as it currently stands, as markdown') plus a distinguishing scope detail: it includes unpublished work. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling show-document, which is the closest-looking alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives strong contextual routing: it is the source edit-document matches old_string against, what publish-document would carry, and points to list-documents for finding targets. No explicit when-not-to-use case, but the alternatives are effectively named.

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