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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add value by disclosing what the response contains — provenance per value, what was replaced, the open question, unread words, send state and any offer — which tells the agent this is a rich snapshot rather than a flat record. It says nothing about token handling beyond the schema's privacy note, nor about failure modes for a stale or unknown id.

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 sentence introduces the resource and its stance, then lists what comes back. It is dense with no filler, though phrases like 'words not yet read' are cryptic enough to cost a little clarity.

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 the return payload and does so field-group by field-group. For a two-parameter read whose annotations cover the safety profile, that is close to sufficient; only prerequisite/usage context for the id 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there (id as 'from an earlier answer', token as private receipt token), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about either parameter and does not mention them at all.

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 resource and scope: a Tendmark Buildings requirement 'as it stands', enumerating the aspects returned (provenance, supersession, open question, unread words, sent status, offer). It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like edit_requirement or send_requirement, though the read verb itself is only implied by the title rather than stated in the description.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this before editing, after sending, or instead of interpret_requirement or inspect_offer. The only usage hint ('The requirement id from an earlier answer') lives in the schema, not the description, so the description offers no routing or prerequisite context.

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