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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It signals a read-only retrieval ('Read'), lists the returned content categories, and usefully discloses that the FAQ payload is optional/lazy-loadable, which is a cost signal. However, it doesn't describe whether results are cached, how large a TSV schema payload is, or what happens if the module_id is not found.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the output payload first, then the usage rule, then the multi-input caveat — a sensible order. It is compact in English, though the fully duplicated Chinese sentence doubles the length without adding information for a single-language reader.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to explain return values, and the tool is a simple two-parameter read. Purpose, pre-draw timing, and the optional FAQ behavior are all covered, which is everything an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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, and the description adds real meaning: it explains that aliases are part of what get_module_schema returns (and that 'inputs' should be used for multi-input modules), and that the full FAQ behind include_details is optional. This gives semantics for both parameters beyond their schema text, though it does not spell out the module_id lookup contract.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') plus an enumerated resource: a module's TSV input format, column meanings, example, parameter aliases, defaults and constraints. It partially differentiates from siblings by noting that the full FAQ (get_faq) is optional, but it never distinguishes itself from get_module_demo or get_result, leaving some ambiguity about which lookup serves which need.

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?

It gives clear situational guidance: 'Read once before drawing' positions this as a pre-flight step before draw_plot, and 'full FAQ is optional' tells the agent when not to pull in the heavier FAQ content. The instruction 'Use inputs for multi-input modules' is a useful but cryptic hint, and no explicit exclusion against the demo/result siblings is stated.

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