read_feishu_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns title and full text and supports wiki documents, which adds useful context. But it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or mention any auth/error details, though the verb 'read' implies non-mutating.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no superfluous information. Every word adds value.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does (read content), what it returns (title and full text), and its scope (normal and wiki docs). It lacks detail on output format or edge cases, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of the document_id parameter with detailed examples of URL formats. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states it reads Feishu document content, retrieving title and full text, and supports both normal and wiki documents. This is a specific verb+resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_feishu_document_meta.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need document content. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_feishu_document_meta.

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