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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is met; the description adds real value by disclosing that the snapshot is editable and that the full page tree must be preserved on save — a non-obvious data-loss hazard invisible from the schema. It stops short of stating whether the revision is required for subsequent updates.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one operational caveat. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so no explanation is needed there, and the save-time warning is useful. But with a fully undocumented required parameter and no sibling differentiation, an agent still lacks enough to call this confidently against adjacent retrieval tools.

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 0% for the single `id` parameter, and the description never mentions it — it does not say whether `id` is a document id, page id, or revision token, an ambiguity that matters given sibling tools that operate on pages. The description provides no compensating meaning.

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 ("Get the ... document snapshot and revision") and clarifies the payload is the full editable document rather than a single page. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like open_document or read_page, so the agent must infer which retrieval tool applies.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of read_page, open_document, or list_documents. The trailing clause "Preserve the full page tree when saving" hints at the edit-then-save workflow but is a downstream caution, not a usage rule for selecting this tool.

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