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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states that the unit is returned 'VERBATIM as authored', which conveys fidelity and that content is not modified. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the id does not exist, or any authentication requirements. For a simple retrieval tool, this partial disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and includes a parenthetical list of content components. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description carries full responsibility for explaining inputs and outputs. It partially covers output by listing components ('rule, examples, decodable sentence, checks') but omits parameter semantics, usage context, error behavior, and return structure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% and the description makes no mention of the two parameters (`id` and `subject`). While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no guidance on what 'id' refers to or how 'subject' might filter or affect the verbatim unit. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 indicates this tool returns a single coach unit verbatim, listing its constituent parts (rule, examples, decodable sentence, checks). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling coach tools by emphasizing 'one unit' rather than an overview or guidance. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making the action slightly implicit.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other coach_* siblings such as coach_overview, coach_guidance, or coach_next. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios. The only hint is 'one unit', which implies individual retrieval, but it is not explicit.

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