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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context that the content includes code examples and commands, and that filenames come from other tools. The phrase 'full text' might slightly overpromise given max_chars truncation, but the schema clearly documents the truncation behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and content, the second gives a usage rule. It is efficiently front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given that the tool is a simple read operation with a 2-param schema, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage guidance. The only minor gap is not mentioning truncation in the description itself, but the schema's max_chars description handles this, making the overall package complete enough.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond what's in the schema, but the schema already provides clear descriptions for both 'filename' (with allowed sources) and 'max_chars' (with default and truncation behavior). No gap requiring compensation.

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 'Read the full text of a Gonka documentation file' with a specific verb and resource, and adds detail about code examples and commands. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_docs or query_graph, which are about listing or searching files.

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 guidance says 'Use this after query_graph() or search_docs() identifies the relevant filename — don't guess a filename directly.' This tells the agent exactly when to use the tool and warns against a common misuse, effectively differentiating it from search/list tools.

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