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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return format (native Markdown when available, otherwise canonical HTML link) and the accepted input category, which goes beyond the safety annotations.

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 three compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by return behavior and input constraint. No sentence is redundant.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers how to obtain valid IDs, what the tool returns, and what inputs are invalid. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single id parameter with pattern and example. The description adds the meaningful constraint that only catalog IDs are accepted and never arbitrary URLs or file paths, which is not fully expressible from the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read a resource returned by search_resources') and immediately distinguishes this tool from its search sibling by tying it to IDs produced there rather than to arbitrary browsing. It also clarifies the return shape, so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 clearly routes the agent to use this after search_resources and explicitly rejects arbitrary URLs or file paths. It does not compare against read_company_profile, but the intended usage context is otherwise clear and constrained.

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