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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: truncation semantics via prefix_omitted, continuation via returned offsets, and the presence of available_sections and warnings in the response. It also warns that summaries are not full judgments, which prevents a misuse of the source_summary section.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core read action front-loaded, followed by parameter hints and then response-field guidance. No filler, though the compressed phrasing ('Check available_sections and warnings') reads as terse shorthand an agent must decode.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully names key return fields and continuation mechanics, which is more than most. Still missing: how id and version_id relate, what limit controls, and any guidance on choosing a section — gaps an agent must guess at.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does so only partially: it explains q as a topic anchor, offsets as continuation handles, and references version and section concepts. It says nothing about limit (default 3, max 5), id vs version_id relationship, or the meaning of the five section enum values.

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: reading 'literal paragraphs' from a 'specific judgment version and section'. This differentiates it from metadata-style siblings like lookup_decision or search_decisions by emphasizing literal text retrieval, though no sibling is named 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?

Implies usage through 'Optional q anchors the initial read near the topic' and 'continue with the returned offsets', which tells the agent how to page through content. However, it never states prerequisites such as needing an id from search_decisions/lookup_decision, nor when to prefer read_administrative_document or answer_with_sources instead.

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