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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes further with the authorization model (project membership on the parent library's project, org-admin canViewAll), the failure contract (404 on cross-org / no-access), and what is not returned (no bytes). These are exactly the access and error semantics an agent needs before calling.

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?

Four short sentences, each load-bearing: identity, return scope, auth semantics, then sibling routing. Front-loaded with the core action, no filler.

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 one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers access, error, and non-content nature. It does not hint at what metadata fields come back, though for a single-row metadata read that omission is minor.

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% for the single parameter ('WorkspaceDocument row id'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description's 'by id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one WorkspaceDocument row by id') plus a scope qualifier ('Metadata only (no bytes)') that separates it from content-reading siblings. It also names the two siblings it must not be confused with, so an agent can place it precisely among ~200 tools.

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?

Explicit routing: 'PREFER list_documents for browsing a library; PREFER get_document_history for rename history.' This gives both the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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