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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds the genuinely non-obvious behavior that long guides return an overview plus section list first and require a second call with "section", which prevents an agent from assuming a single call yields full content. It doesn't cover what happens for an unknown id, but the core read semantics are well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the paging behavior, then what the content contains. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (overview plus section list, then section content) and what each guide holds (eligibility, amounts with dates, claim process, forms, official sources). Nothing needed to call it correctly 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% with examples for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by explaining the two-step semantics of "section" — the first call returns a section list, and "section" is used on a subsequent call — which is a usage pattern the schema does not convey. It also clarifies id provenance, adding real meaning beyond the field descriptions.

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?

"Read one Hebrew rights guide by id" names a specific verb and resource, and the id-provenance clause distinguishes it from search_rights_knowledge without opening either schema. An agent can immediately tell this is the retrieval step that follows a search.

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 states where ids come from (search_rights_knowledge results, or a guide referenced inside another guide) and describes the follow-up call needed to drill into a section, which implies the search-then-read workflow. It stops short of an explicit "use search_rights_knowledge instead when you don't have an id" exclusion, but the routing is clear enough to act on.

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