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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's job is to add content context. It does: plain text, full guide, and the four sections returned. It stops short of describing size, versioning, or whether the guide can change over time.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The content enumeration is front-loaded and the imperative "Read this before signing" is placed last for emphasis where it belongs.

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 parameterless, side-effect-free read with no output schema, the description fully carries the burden by listing what the guide contains and when it must be read. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

The schema declares zero properties and 100% (vacuous) coverage, so there are no parameters whose semantics need explaining. Baseline of 4 applies: nothing is missing and nothing needs compensation.

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 and resource ("Returns the full plain-text guide") and enumerates the content: the draft Accord, the operators' commitments, unknowns, and endpoint usage. That makes it distinguishable from siblings like read_agreement, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

"Read this before signing" gives an explicit trigger tied to sign_accord, so the agent knows when this document must be consulted. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives beyond that single condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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