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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: 'Reads only' explicitly signals a non-mutating, safe operation, and the field enumeration tells the agent what to expect in the result. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but those are less critical for a simple read.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action and identifier options before listing the returned content, with no filler. The long enumeration is justified because there is no output schema to carry that information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both how to identify the agreement and what will be returned. The client-name uniqueness constraint lives only in the schema, but the schema is available to the agent, so the definition is complete enough.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description repeats the identifier options from the schema but omits the caveat that client name works 'when only one agreement has it'; it adds no new parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Read one service agreement in full' — then enumerates the contained fields and closes with 'Reads only,' which distinguishes it from create/update siblings. The title and description align, and the tool's scope is unmistakable.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need the full detail of one agreement selected by SA number or client name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of a 5.

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