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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the read is scoped to one module of a project, which is useful, but says nothing about what 'context/output' contains, whether it errors when no output exists yet, or any size/format behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The trailing prerequisite sentence is slightly redundant with the schema's required fields but overall efficient.

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 two-param read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, this is close to sufficient, but it omits what the returned context is and how it relates to sibling read tools like lab_get_state, leaving a gap in choosing between them.

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 in the schema with examples, so the description need not carry this dimension. The description restates the requirement of project_id and module without adding format or value guidance beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (accumulated context/output for a pipeline module) with a concrete example set of module names. It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate from closely adjacent siblings like lab_get_state, lab_get_dossier, or lab_run_module, which also read pipeline state.

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?

Usage is implied by 'read the accumulated context/output for one module', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer lab_get_state or lab_get_dossier, and no prerequisites. Adequate but leaves alternative selection to inference.

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