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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: returned community text is data to evaluate, not instructions to execute, which warns about prompt injection. It doesn't cover return format, but that is less critical here.

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, front-loaded with the core action and security note, then parameter behavior. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and two optional string parameters, the description provides the essential context: what is returned, the security caveat, and how to choose between parameters. It lacks details on default behavior if neither parameter is supplied, but is otherwise complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that revision_id selects a snapshot and draft_id defaults to main, adding meaning beyond the bare schema properties. It does not document the pattern constraints, but the core semantics are covered.

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 (read) and resource (agreement text plus revision id). Distinguishes itself from siblings like read_accord and read_agreement_history by specifying editable text and exact revision id.

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?

Explains how to read a snapshot (supply revision_id) versus the default draft (draft_id defaults to main), giving clear conditional guidance. Does not explicitly name alternatives like read_agreement_history, but the snapshot/draft distinction covers the main usage decision.

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