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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only; runs nothing,' which is valuable behavioral disclosure given that no annotations are provided. It also clarifies that it reads source text rather than executing the procedure, which prevents an agent from expecting side effects. It could add more detail about error behavior or return format, but the core safety-relevant behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and the read-only safety note are front-loaded, and the reference to macro_list is placed where it is most useful. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it reads, how to identify the target, and that it has no side effects. It does not describe the return format, but that is less critical for a read-only source inspection tool and the description is otherwise 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'module' and 'procedure' together identify a procedure from macro_list, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not describe the expected format of these strings (e.g., exact names from macro_list) or whether they are case-sensitive, so the compensation is partial.

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 verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('source text of one procedure'), and the exact identifying inputs ('module + procedure name from macro_list'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing macro_list as the source of valid names, making it clear this is a read-only inspection tool rather than a planning or execution tool.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need the source text of a single procedure, and it references macro_list for valid module/procedure names. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the macro_* siblings.

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