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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is 'public and read-only; discloses, does not gate,' reinforcing the safety profile and adding the nuance that it does not gate access. It also mentions the return format (raw markdown) and the CO 311 reference, which adds context beyond 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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value: it lists the documents, explains the context, states the argument, and provides an example. 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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the argument values, the return format, and the context. No output schema is needed, and the description does not need to explain return values beyond stating it returns raw markdown.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description and enum for the single parameter. The description adds the exact allowed values and an example call, which is helpful but not strictly necessary given the schema's completeness. The baseline is 3, and the example and explicit enumeration push it to 4.

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 clearly states the tool fetches a ComOS legal instrument as raw markdown, listing the four specific document types. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it is public, read-only, and discloses terms, which is unique among the federation and introspection tools.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use it: to read legal terms an agent operates under, analogous to reading a pricesheet. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for legal documents, but the context is sufficient given the sibling list contains no other legal-specific tools.

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