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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the summary is not the raw schema, large nodes are narrowed with a truncation indicator, and descending via path provides fuller detail. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set agent expectations, though it is slightly vague about the exact truncation representation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core result, the second clarifies scope and truncation behavior, and the third gives direct usage guidance. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description does a solid job of explaining what is returned, how truncation works, how to get more detail, and when to call it. The schema covers parameter details like defaults and error cases. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it does not mention where to find the document type list other than via the parameter schema's reference to get_version_info.

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 schema already documents path, type, and version thoroughly. The description adds contextual relevance by mentioning required fields and format_version, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('summarises') and resource ('schema of a Bedrock document type'), then enumerates the exact contents: required fields, valid format_version values, and field metadata. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from returning the raw schema, so an agent can tell what this tool does and does not do.

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 gives clear intended context: 'Call this before writing a file to learn which fields are required and what format_version must be.' It also explains when to use the path parameter to descend into a child node. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool beyond noting that it does not return the raw schema.

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