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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that it returns the FULL text (not a summary or metadata) and where it fits in a read-then-act workflow; it lacks error behavior for unknown ids, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences with no waste, front-loading what is returned before the workflow hint. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Complete for a one-parameter read tool: what it does, what it returns (full text), and when to call it are all present, with annotations covering safety. No output schema exists, but 'full text' sufficiently signals the return; only minor gaps like error/missing-id behavior remain.

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% and the single documentId is already documented as a UUID, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by id' adds only marginal meaning beyond that; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (read) and resource (full text of a Library document), gives concrete examples of document types, and scopes it by id. It clearly distinguishes itself from metadata/search tools like stride.search_documents.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use after stride.search_documents and before summarizing or creating stories/tasks from the content. It gives a clear workflow position but does not state when not to use it (e.g., use append_to_document or update_document instead of reading).

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