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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by scoping to published elements and naming what is returned (source and input definitions); it does not cover error behavior for unpublished or missing ids.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the id source are stated immediately.

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 read-only, fully annotated, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition gives enough to call it correctly. A note on behavior for missing/unpublished ids would close the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 50%: projectId is well documented in the schema, while id has no schema description. 'By id from search_elements' partially compensates by indicating the id is an element identifier obtained from search_elements, but adds no format or type detail beyond that.

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?

Specific verb (read) plus specific resource (a published element's source and input definitions), with the lookup key (id) named. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_component, read_template, and read_film.

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 phrase 'by id from search_elements' tells the agent the prerequisite step and where ids originate, which is real routing guidance. It does not, however, state any exclusions or when a different read_* sibling would be preferable.

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