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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by saying it returns neighbouring source paragraphs, but it does not mention pagination, access constraints, or other behavioral details.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It states the main action and the returned context efficiently.

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?

The tool has five parameters, four required, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description leaves significant gaps for correct invocation. Although an output schema and annotations reduce the burden for return values and safety, the description still does not explain the required identifiers well enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It only loosely connects to 'deal' and 'citation'; it does not explain what run, document, block, or build mean or how they relate to retrieving a passage.

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 citation' plus 'neighbouring source paragraphs.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like list_deals and get_timeline, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'a citation returned by the selected deal,' suggesting this tool is for inspecting a citation after a deal has been selected. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison against get_timeline and list_deals.

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