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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint. Beyond those, the description adds two useful facts: only published resources are returned, and the content is untrusted contributor/external material (a prompt-injection caution). It says nothing about missing/unpublished slug behavior, so the added context is real but partial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, then the prerequisite, then the trust caveat. Nothing is redundant 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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, and the published-only and untrusted-content notes cover the main behavioral risks. Only error/empty-result behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents slug. The description only restates that the slug comes from search_documents, adding no format or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the exact payload: summary, scope, section headings, formats, author, version, source attribution, preview. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by tying the call to the slug from search_documents, though the name/title mismatch ('document' vs 'resource') slightly blurs the referent.

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?

It states a clear prerequisite workflow: use the slug returned by search_documents, implying search first, then fetch details. It also scopes the tool to 'published' resources. There are no explicit exclusions or comparison against get_document_filters, which keeps it below a 5.

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