read_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that the output includes section labels for citation purposes, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and provides additional behavioral detail, so it earns a 4.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action (reading document body) and immediately adds a key feature (section labels for citation). It is concise, with no filler, and every word contributes 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?

Given the read-only nature and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the basic behavior. It does not mention pagination flow, but the start_char parameter description covers that. However, it lacks any mention of when to choose this tool over siblings, which is a gap covered by the usage guideline dimension. Overall, it is nearly complete for a read tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It makes no mention of how to use start_char, max_chars, or only_labels, leaving that to the schema, which is adequate.

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 reads document body text and mentions that it attaches section labels for citation. It is specific about the resource (document) and action (read), but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like outline_document or search_documents, so it scores 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says what it does, not when it should be chosen or when it should not be used. No exclusions or references to sibling tools are provided, so it scores 2.

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