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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the output is raw markdown with YAML frontmatter left intact, which tells the agent what it will actually receive on a successful call.

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 tight sentences with the core action stated first and the entry-point hint second. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the necessary action, scope, return format, and entry point. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens on an invalid or missing bundle path.

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 100% and the single path parameter is documented with concrete examples (/okf/costs/eicr.md, /okf/log.md). The description only reinforces the '/okf'-rooted domain and mentions the index file as a starting point, adding little beyond the schema.

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: reads one file of the Tradehand Open Knowledge Format bundle under /okf, returning raw markdown with YAML frontmatter intact. The OKF-bundle scoping implicitly separates it from siblings like get_page_markdown, but no sibling is named 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?

Gives one concrete starting hint ('Start at /okf/index.md for the list of concepts'), which is implied guidance on how to begin. It never says when to choose this over get_page_markdown or any other sibling, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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