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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the declared file format is not trusted (bytes are sniffed), PDF/Word are handled, and a `reason` is returned on failure so empty text is never ambiguous. That is exactly the kind of failure-mode disclosure an agent needs before calling.

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?

Purpose and id requirement are front-loaded, then behavior and failure handling, then paging. It is a single dense paragraph rather than scannable lines, and the document-type enumeration is slightly sprawling, but every clause carries real information.

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 not be detailed, yet the description still names title, date, spørgsmålsordlyd, asker/answerer, extracted text, and the failure `reason`. Combined with paging and format-sniffing notes, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret empty results.

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 three parameters (document_id, offset, max_chars) are already documented in the schema, including defaults and the 400000 cap. The description only restates that long texts are paged with offset/max_chars, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (return full text) and resource (Folketinget Dokument), keyed by numeric id, and enumerates concrete document types (minister's answer to udvalgsspørgsmål, bill text, consultation reply). It is clearly distinguishable from metadata siblings like get_entity_by_id, which only resolves the record rather than extracting file text.

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 usage context is clear: use this when you have a Dokument id and need the actual text rather than metadata. It does not explicitly name the alternative (get_entity_by_id / search tools) for obtaining an id, and gives no explicit 'when not to use', so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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