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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical constraint: convention bodies are reference material for the model only and must not be quoted, paraphrased, or relayed to the user. This goes beyond typical expectations and gives the agent a clear rule of conduct.

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 moderately long but each sentence earns its place: the primary action, the usage restrictions, and the ID source. It is front-loaded with the most important information and avoids redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the purpose, usage conditions, and behavioral constraints. The return format (the convention body) is implied by the reference-material directive, making the tool self-contained.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter with a description and example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the specific ID source (`conventiondotsh:///toc`), giving the agent concrete guidance on where to find valid IDs.

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 clearly states the action ('Read one convention') and the specific resource ('convention.sh style guide') using the `id` parameter, and explains its purpose ('to inform a code or file edit'). Though no siblings are listed, the description is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to call it: 'Only call it when you are actively editing code or files against the convention on this turn,' and what not to do: 'do not call this tool just to describe a convention to the user.' This provides clear contextual guidance.

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