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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that with 'The returned handle authorizes exactly the disclosed content', which tells the agent the returned capability is scoped to the disclosed data only.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource list. The second sentence carries genuine behavioral value. Slightly dense in the first sentence by packing three resource types, but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a tool with 11 parameters and many handle/operation parameters, the description gives no routing among overlapping siblings and no guidance on which handle to pass, leaving real gaps.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's only param-relevant statement, the scoping of 'the returned handle', is generic and adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 read verb and names three concrete resources ('exact source, a drawing recipe or a comparison difference'), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely named siblings like document.get_context or document.find, so an agent cannot confidently tell them apart from this text alone.

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 only usage signal is the trailing clause 'when inspecting work before an edit', which is too vague to be actionable. No alternatives are named and no when-not conditions are given, despite siblings such as find, get_context, and show_changes that overlap in function.

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