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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: reads are bounded, and cursors are bound to the content revision (so a revision change invalidates them). It stops short of describing chunk size limits or what happens with an invalid/expired cursor.

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, both load-bearing: the first states what is read and where the ID comes from, the second covers pagination and cursor invalidation. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description adequately covers the fetch-then-continue workflow plus cursor lifecycle. The remaining gap is the section-vs-cursor relationship and cursor expiry behavior for a 3-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It explains that documentId comes from search results and that cursor is a continuation token, which is meaningful, but the 'section' parameter is only named—no naming convention, case sensitivity, or interaction with cursor is given, even though the schema constrains its length to 160 chars.

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 precise verb+resource ('Read a bounded chunk or named section') and identifies the document ID source, which cleanly separates it from search_proxy_docs. An agent can tell immediately this is the follow-up fetch step rather than a search or config tool.

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?

Explicitly ties usage to a prior search_proxy_docs call that produced the document ID, and gives the continuation rule ('Follow nextCursor to continue'). It does not state when to prefer a section read over a cursor read, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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