read_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it is a read-only synthesis and warns about consequences of feeding output back to `update_document`. It also describes the output format and that it paginates `read_document_parts`, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 concise with two paragraphs, front-loading the main purpose and then providing usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required), an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and parameter semantics sufficiently. It leaves no obvious gaps for effective tool invocation.

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 60%, and the schema provides clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Polarion project ID.'). The description does not add new parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline for adequate schema documentation.

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 the tool renders a Polarion document as flowing Markdown, specifies the verb (render), resource (document), and format (Markdown). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `read_document_parts` and `get_document`, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use ('canonical way to read a body'), when not to use ('do NOT feed back to `update_document`'), and alternatives ('use `get_document(include_homepage_content_html=True)` for round-trip' and 'prefer `list_work_items` SQL for metadata-only').

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