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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds operational context: output is plain text, section-specific content is supported, and character ranges are used for large text. It does not add auth or rate-limit details, but annotations reduce the burden.

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 followed by usage guidance. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 clearly states that the result is plain text and explains section selection and large-text handling. The schema supplies pagination details, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is complete enough to invoke 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 100%, so the schema already explains agent_id, build_id, section, offset, and length. The description restates section meanings and character-range reading but adds little beyond the schema's own definitions, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: one section of a revision's config as plain text, naming the input and source sections. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from getRevision by directing large-text use, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to use it instead of getRevision when the text is large, and references listAgents with config=light to obtain input_chars and source_chars. This gives a clear alternative-selection rule and supporting context.

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