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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it resolves old addresses locally, returns a section of existing text, requires following content.nextOffset for complete text, and explicitly states that linked scans are not read. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core action and resource, then adds the most important behavioral notes (local resolution, return contents, section default, pagination, scan limitation). Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already structured. The description covers the key operational details: identifier types, section selection, pagination via nextOffset, and the scan limitation. It does not mention 'limit' or 'version' semantics explicitly, but the pagination guidance implies their role. For a read-only tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete.

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 compensate. It does: it explains that 'id' can be a VHP record ID or VHP URL, that 'section' defaults to 'body' and other sections come from 'sections', and that 'offset' pagination should use content.nextOffset with the same section and version. It does not explain 'limit' or 'version' in detail, but the pagination guidance covers the key semantics. This is strong compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('public VHP record'), and specifies the two accepted identifiers (ID or VHP URL). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it resolves old addresses locally and returns metadata, source links, citations, and a section of existing text. This is a clear, specific purpose statement that an agent can act on.

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 description gives clear context on how to use the tool: default section is body, choose other sections from sections, and follow content.nextOffset with the same section and version for complete text. It also states a limitation ('Linked scans are not read'). However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_records or get_related_records, so it misses explicit exclusions.

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