Get saved corpus

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real signal by stating the error behavior when a corpus is missing or unreadable and clarifying that image pointers are saved pixels with no interpretation performed. It stops short of noting corpus size or truncation behavior, which is the only meaningful gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and what is returned, followed by the disambiguation then the caveats. Every sentence carries unique information with no repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates the returned components (Markdown corpus, citation rows, source/image pointers) and the failure mode. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage — the schema already explains that slug comes from list_recent_uoinks or search_uoinks. The description only restates 'by slug', adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured data, 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates exactly what the resource contains: complete Markdown corpus, citation rows, source/image pointers, addressed by slug. It is distinguishable from every nearby sibling at a glance.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('full local document') and names two concrete alternatives with their selecting conditions: get_library_item + read_library_resource for bounded chunks, get_citation_map for citations alone. Nothing is left to inference.

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