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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses truncation behavior and the default character budget, which an agent could not infer otherwise. It omits anything about permissions, missing-path errors, or what happens when the artifact exceeds max_chars, so the disclosure is partial.

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 the action and target front-loaded; the parenthetical and truncation clause each earn their place. Slightly dense but no wasted wording or filler.

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 simple 3-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action, the path source, and truncation. It still leaves the artifact-type boundary against sibling readers and failure behavior unaddressed, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'path' (via its origin in list_files) and gives max_chars a default value (60,000) not present in the schema, which adds real meaning. However, nb_id is never explained and no parameter format or boundary semantics are given beyond the schema's own constraints.

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: reading one stored text artifact belonging to an opportunity, with the path source parenthetically identified. It clearly separates from list_files, but does not distinguish itself from similar sibling readers like get_document_text or get_evidence, leaving the agent to guess which artifact type this targets.

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 '(path from list_files)' implies the workflow prerequisite of listing files before reading one, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_document_text/get_evidence, nor any exclusion for artifact types this tool does not handle.

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