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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the data is 'read live from its source formula' (freshness/derivation) and it also reports whether the accord 'can be decomposed'.

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 the trigger first and the payload second; every clause carries information. It is dense with stacked clauses, which slightly reduces readability but wastes nothing.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it largely does: material list, dose, per-material share, live source, decomposability flag. Missing only details like ordering or empty-accord behavior.

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 both parameters (formula, line) are already documented as id-or-name and material-name-or-line-id. The description adds no syntax, format, or disambiguation beyond that, so the 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 ('show') and resource ('what an accord holds') and enumerates the exact payload: materials at the dose used, each with its share, read live from the source formula, plus decomposability. This distinguishes it from siblings like decompose_accord, get_formula, and check_formula without opening their schemas.

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?

'Use this when the user asks what is inside an accord line of a formula' gives a clear triggering condition. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with decompose_accord or insert_accord, leaving the boundary to inference.

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