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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The phrase 'word for word' usefully signals the content is returned verbatim and untruncated, but it says nothing about what happens with an unknown ID, size limits, or pagination for very long passages.

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?

A single sentence with the payload shape and the ID provenance front-loaded, and no filler. It is slightly compressed into a fragment, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent actually needs: what is returned (full verbatim text), the identifying key, and where the key comes from. Nothing essential is missing.

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 carries the burden — and it does: it explains that 'id' is a passage ID and, crucially, that it originates from parse_search. That is more useful than a generic type annotation. It stops short of stating the ID format or validation rules.

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 operation: retrieve the full, verbatim text of a single passage identified by ID. That distinguishes it from parse_search (which only yields IDs/snippets) and implicitly from parse_read_record. The one weak point is the term 'master', which is never defined, leaving the resource domain opaque.

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 parenthetical '(from parse_search)' is a genuine workflow hint, telling the agent the ID comes from a prior search call, so the chaining order is implied. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs parse_read_record or parse_method, and no failure-mode guidance for bad IDs.

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