read_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds context by specifying the return format ('Formatted string containing the document title and content'), but does not detail potential error behavior or other behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with a main statement, bulleted use cases, and separate Args/Returns sections. It is concise (about 80 words) and every sentence adds value, with no 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 simple input (one parameter), complete annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter explanation, and return format. Minor omissions like error handling do not significantly detract from completeness for this tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section adds meaningful context: 'document_id: The document ID to retrieve'. This explains the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type/required, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'retrieves and displays' and the resource 'full content of a document'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_document or delete_document by focusing on read-only access to full content.

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 lists four use cases ('Access the complete content...', 'Review document information...', etc.), providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with similar read tools like search_documents.

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