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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that the full body is returned and that output format depends on document kind, with a kind field indicating it. The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so this added return-format context earns a strong score.

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 sentences deliver the core behavior without filler. The key idea, returning the full body, is front-loaded, and the format clarification is concise and useful.

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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, how format varies, and that a kind field disambiguates. The schema documents the parameter and the annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing.

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 param schema already states that the value is a document id or exact title. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: return a document with its full body, and it adds format-specific details. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_docs or read_attachment, so it stops 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?

The read intent is clear and implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. An agent is left to infer that this tool is for fetching a single document body rather than listing or searching documents.

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