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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: 'Free to read' signals a non-mutating, no-cost operation, and each part's payload is characterized (quoted spans, source hashes, breaches, model cost, publication checks). It does not disclose error conditions or whether reads are eventually consistent against order_status.

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?

Front-loaded with the call trigger before the part breakdown, and every clause carries information. The semicolon-dense part list is efficient though slightly compressed, bordering on terse for a first-time reader.

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 compensates well by describing the return shape for each part, including the default. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only error and readiness semantics are left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's thin 'which part of the result (default composition)' by explaining what each enum value actually contains. That materially helps an agent choose between composition, evidence, and publication.

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 and resource ('Read a delivered result' / 'returns the delivered work') and immediately scopes it against the sibling that produces the identifier ('Use once order_status names a result_id'). An agent can distinguish get_result from order_status, get_quote, and the other siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing prerequisite: only call after order_status has supplied a result_id. It also guides the part choice by labeling composition as the 'usable result' and default. It stops short of stating failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the result is not yet delivered), which is the remaining gap.

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