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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the exact return fields, the default base64-image stripping and its consequence ('hosting a stripped copy back would drop those images'), and offset/max_chars paging with a continuation offset. That is rich, non-redundant context.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the patch_doc precursor relationship, and every sentence carries useful content. It is dense and somewhat long, but no sentence is filler, so it stays just short of maximal conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does (title, share URL, role, HTML, paging continuation). Combined with the stripping caveat and account handling, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: that a stripped copy re-hosted would lose images (justifying strip_data_uris: false), and that offset comes from the previous response's continuation note. doc_name fuzzy-matching is largely a restatement of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the current HTML body') and immediately scopes it ('their own docs OR docs other people have shared with them'). It also names the return payload (title, share URL, role, full HTML), letting an agent distinguish it from siblings like app_read_doc without opening schemas.

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 routing: 'ESSENTIAL precursor to patch_doc: call this first whenever the user asks for any change to a doc you don't have in context.' It also gives selection guidance for doc_name vs slug and for the strip_data_uris branching, so when-to-use is fully covered.

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