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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful security caveat ('Tools are server effects, never browser credentials'), but doesn't explain what the read returns or how the section selection behaves.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loading the read intent. However 'Tools are server effects, never browser credentials' is cryptic out of context and adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

No output schema and 0% parameter documentation mean the description must carry the burden, but it never explains how to choose among 14 section enum values or what exampleIds filters. For a documentation-reading tool with rich enum options, this is a significant gap.

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% and there are 14 enum values for 'section' plus an exampleIds array, none documented. The description only loosely gestures at 'package', 'interface/controller', and 'examples', failing to compensate for the zero-coverage 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resources (Genesis package contract plus interface/controller examples), and frames the intent (before authoring a world app). It is fairly distinguishable from siblings, though the jargon 'Genesis package' and overlap with get_hosted_world_sdk leave some ambiguity about exactly what content this returns.

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?

'before authoring a world app' implies timing, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives like get_hosted_world_sdk or get_usage_guide. The second sentence is a warning, not usage routing.

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