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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the returned fields and showing ID-format examples, but it does not describe behavior for missing records or other failure cases.

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 tightly packed sentence with the purpose front-loaded, followed by ID examples and returned fields. Every part adds signal, and there is no wasted prose.

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 simple one-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description gives the essential return shape and ID format examples. It is nearly complete, though not-found behavior and exact ID normalization rules are omitted.

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 must carry the meaning of the single id parameter. It does this reasonably well with concrete examples such as 'FA 1462 as fa-1462', 'REG-927', and 'sc-51', though it could be more explicit about normalization 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 retrieval action and resource: reading one record by ID, and it lists the fields returned. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic search, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling read tool parse_read_passage.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by its ID' and the example IDs, suggesting the tool is used when an exact record identifier is known. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of parse_search or parse_read_passage.

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