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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the returned state, including provenance, replacements, open questions, unread words, sent status, and offers, but it does not discuss authentication, error behavior, or privacy handling beyond what the schema says.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and state. Its colon-list structure is efficient, though the fragment style and dense list of fields make it slightly less clear than an explicit action statement.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does list several important fields. However, the field descriptions are high-level and somewhat cryptic, and the description does not cover error cases or what happens when the requirement is not found.

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%, with both id and token documented, including that the token is private. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the schema is doing all the work and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 title supplies the verb ('Read a requirement as it stands') and the description identifies the resource as a Stillleaf requirement with a current-state snapshot. It is distinguishable from sibling mutations such as edit_requirement and send_requirement, though the description itself is a noun phrase rather than a direct action statement.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as interpret_requirement or edit_requirement, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The read-only nature is implied by the name and title, but the description does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice.

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