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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: each call appends a new view to the conversation, so calls are cumulative and non-idempotent in effect. It does not discuss permissions or what happens if the document isn't found, but the key side effect is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and the rendered format before the usage conditions, with no filler sentences. The second sentence is dense with two conditions and a redirection, but every clause carries routing value.

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-only display tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, visual result, timing, frequency, and the sibling alternative — everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly.

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% and the single 'document' parameter already documents its target and points to list-documents. The description adds no further parameter detail (e.g., accepted identifier format), so the schema does the work and the baseline of 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 — present a document as a styled, read-only view inline in chat — and even describes what that view contains (requirement cards with keys, criteria, labels). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get-document, the sibling an agent would most plausibly confuse it with.

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 explicit positive triggers (user asks to see, review, or discuss a document; once after a batch of edits) and an explicit negative trigger (not after every small edit). It also names the alternative for a competing need: use get-document when reading content for private reasoning.

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