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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does substantial work: it declares this a read, states the 6000-character default and character-based offset/next_offset units, and warns that has_more alone is not a reason to continue paging. It does not describe failure behavior for unknown slugs or the response envelope, so it falls short of a 5.

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 core action and the routing decision first, then mechanics. It is dense but nearly every clause carries a rule the agent would otherwise guess wrong; a lighter paragraph split would improve scanability but nothing is truly redundant.

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 6-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers routing, view selection, pagination units, page-size defaults, the full-download restriction, and a caveat that executable signal identities come from the runtime registry rather than the document. An agent has enough to call it correctly on the first try.

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%, so a 3 is the floor; the description goes beyond it by fixing the unit of offset/next_offset as characters within the selected body (the schema only says 'result units') and by tying section_anchor to a value returned by overview or search. It slightly restates the schema's view and full semantics rather than adding new meaning there.

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 requested KB guide or a known source section by slug') and immediately separates itself from the graph/query tools. It is clearly distinguishable from kb_search, kb_list_documents and query_knowledge without opening any schema.

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 when-to-use ('use directly when the user requests the document itself; no preliminary graph call is required'), an explicit alternative with its own trigger ('for a general explanation use query_knowledge op=ask'), and a resolution path when the slug is unknown (kb_search / kb_list_documents). It also routes between view modes and restricts full=True to explicit full-document requests.

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