get_content

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool safe; the description adds beyond that: it states that any channel member can verify an upload, and that text is returned only when with_body=true. This provides useful permission and optional-body behavior, though it does not mention rate limits or degenerate cases.

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 sentences, with the primary action and results front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds the access/permission model. While 'that is the point of publishing the number' is mildly oblique, it does not repeat the schema and each clause serves a purpose.

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 a clear output schema, a simple boolean parameter, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the central edge: what the tool returns and that the caller needs no special permission for the action. It does not describe operation-specific limitations, but the output schema and the access note make the tool fully callable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the effect of with_body (returns text) and implies upload_id identifies the uploaded document. This adds meaning that the raw schema does not provide for the parameters.

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 states a specific action, 'read back', targeting an uploaded document, and explicitly lists the returned components: digest, lengths, and optionally the text body. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling upload/manage tools like upload_content, seal_content, and send_message.

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 sentence 'Anyone in the channel may verify an upload — that is the point...' implies the when (verification/readback) and gives a security context. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use this tool, like the unrelated read_inbox or upload_content.

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