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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by stating what is returned and explicitly ruling out arbitrary URL/file fetching, though it does not describe error behavior for invalid IDs.

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 three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds useful information: ID provenance, return contents, and scope limitation.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: where the ID comes from, what the tool returns, and what it does not do. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does so by defining the id as an exact document ID returned by search, giving concrete examples such as spec:form and project:dupe, and clarifying that URLs are not accepted.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: reading a document by exact ID. It clearly distinguishes this from search by saying the ID is returned by search, and from URL fetching by explicitly excluding arbitrary URLs/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?

It states the required workflow condition: use an exact document ID returned by search. It also states a clear exclusion: does not fetch arbitrary URLs or files, which prevents misuse as a general URL fetcher.

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