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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, closed-world read operation, so the description only needs incremental detail. "Full text" usefully signals that the response contains the complete module rather than a summary, but it says nothing about output format, missing modules, or size limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the operation.

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 one enum-constrained parameter and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: it identifies the tool and says the response is full text. It still omits return format details and any guidance on how the module names relate to list_modules.

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 should compensate by explaining the module parameter or its enum values. It merely restates that a module is selected and adds no meaning beyond the enum already in 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Return the full text of one playbook module." It distinguishes fetching a single module's full content from listing modules by emphasizing "one" and "full text," though it does not name list_modules explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus list_modules or consult_brain, nor any stated preconditions. The phrase "one playbook module" only weakly implies that listing comes first, leaving usage to inference.

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