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

No annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the returned contents (subtasks, messages, attachments), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't state auth needs, rate limits, or whether it fails for missing IDs.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the action and key details with no waste.

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 two-parameter read tool with a rich schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return contents. Missing usage guidance and behavioral details, but adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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%: both account_code and piece_relative_id are fully described in the schema. The description doesn't add extra syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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), resource (a single piece), and entity types (Task/Story/Epic/Recurent), with the keying mechanism (relative ID). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like ListPiecesTool by scoping to 'a single piece' and enumerating returned sub-resources (subtasks, messages, attachments).

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?

Implied usage: read one piece by relative ID. But no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., ListPiecesTool for multiple, GetAttachmentTool for attachments only). No prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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