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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the "Full" doc rather than a summary, which is useful, but says nothing about size, format, or behavior on a bad slug.

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?

A single short sentence with the key qualifier ("Full") and the identifier front-loaded, followed by a concrete example. Nothing is padded, though the fragmentary phrasing is thin for an agent-facing definition.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits how to obtain a slug and any hint about the returned document's shape, which matters when the payload is a whole design doc.

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 the slug parameter alone — it does so by giving a concrete example value ("m-agent-mcp-website") that demonstrates the expected format. It does not say where slugs come from or whether they are case-sensitive.

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 names the resource (design doc), the lookup key (slug), and the qualifier "Full," which distinguishes it from design_docs_list's presumably summarized listing. It lacks an explicit verb, but combined with the title the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative design_docs_list or docs_search for discovering slugs, and no statement of what happens if the slug is unknown. The only implied guidance is that you must already have a slug.

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