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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Read' correctly signals a non-mutating operation and the slug provenance is useful context, but nothing is said about failure behavior for an unknown slug, whether the response is the full document body, or what an empty result looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key action and the identifier come first and the provenance hint follows compactly in parentheses.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and how to supply input. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about what a returned entry contains or how misses are reported.

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 includes an example value, so the baseline is 3. The description earns one more point by telling the agent where a valid slug can be obtained, which the schema does not say.

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 one knowledge-base entry in full') with explicit scope ('by its slug'). It is clearly distinguished from kb_search, which is described as the producer of slugs rather than the full-entry reader.

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 parenthetical makes the workflow explicit: slugs come from server instructions or from kb_search, so an agent knows the prerequisite lookup step. It stops short of stating exclusions, such as when to prefer kb_search results or kb_record, so it is not a full when/when-not statement.

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