read_reference_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the current draft and version, which adds behavioral context beyond a simple read. No contradictions, and the description is straightforward about what the user gets.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides crucial usage advice. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is sufficient. It clearly explains what the tool does and why it should be used before updates. No additional information is necessary.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, so the description adds no additional meaning. The baseline is 3, and the description does not provide extra semantics beyond what is already in the schema.

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 clearly states 'Read one reference_doc by id, including its current draft and version.' This specifies the verb (Read), the resource (reference_doc), and the scope (by id, includes draft and version), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_reference_docs or read_reference_doc_version.

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 description explicitly advises 'Read before you update — you need the current version.' This provides clear when-to-use context, making it obvious that the tool is a prerequisite for update operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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