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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens to the data. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the verb.

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 sentence, so it is concise in length. However, it uses jargon like 'read surface' and 'how the record is bought' without explanation, making it cryptic rather than clear. It is not front-loaded with useful information that would help an agent understand the tool quickly.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to explain what the tool does in a clear way, what the output looks like, or when it should be used. The description is too vague for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not conflict with the schema. No parameter information is needed.

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 uses the verb 'Return' with a resource, but the resource is described as 'the read surface's coverage' and 'how the record is bought,' which are cryptic and ambiguous. It does not clearly state what the tool does or differentiate it from siblings like carrier_record or specimen. The meaning is not immediately understandable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any direction for selection.

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