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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to say what comes back, and it does: each value plus its provenance, the value it replaced, the open question, unread words, send status, and any offer. That is substantive context beyond the annotations and beyond the schema, and there is no output schema to carry it instead.

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?

A single front-loaded clause followed by a compact enumeration of returned fields; every item earns its place and there is no filler. Slightly elliptical phrasing ('words not yet read') is still parsable in context.

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?

Return payload is well covered even without an output schema, and both required parameters are fully documented in the schema. What is missing for an agent is routing context – when this read is the right call versus the many sibling inspection tools – which leaves the definition adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100% – the id is documented as coming from an earlier answer and the token as the private receipt token of the sent request. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource (a Millsheet requirement) and its state ('as it stands'), which signals a read-only snapshot and distinguishes it from edit_requirement or send_requirement. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-first statement, and the read semantics come largely from the title, but the intent is still unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as inspect_offer, inspect_delivery, or interpret_requirement, even though those siblings appear to return overlapping pieces of the same data. The only implicit cue is the schema note that the id comes 'from an earlier answer'.

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