Get a saved brief and its latest report

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds specific behavioral context: it only reads, saves nothing, runs no check, and explicitly names the tools that do save (save_brief, update_brief). It further discloses that saved briefs are stored encrypted until delete_brief removes them and that an API key is needed. This goes well beyond the annotation booleans.

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 long but information-dense; every sentence delivers actionable detail (what the report contains, the read-only guarantee, opt-in saving, encryption, API key). It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and then layers usage, constraints, and caveats logically. A slight trim could tighten it, but the verbosity is justified given the tool's scope.

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 read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this description covers all necessary facets: return contents, parameter usage, side effects (none), storage/encryption, authentication, and relationships to sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and the annotations already handle safety hints, so the description is 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?

The input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical semantics: id is sourced from save_brief or list_briefs, version refers to an earlier entry in the versions list, and include_text=false is recommended for long briefs. This enriches the schema's descriptions with real-world usage context, pushing it to a 4.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one brief saved in the user's proofread.law account'), then enumerates exactly what is returned (saved text, report details, versions). It explicitly differentiates from siblings like save_brief, update_brief, delete_brief, and list_briefs by describing its read-only retrieval role and mentioning render_report and update_brief as downstream consumers.

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?

It tells the agent when to use it ('to pick up where the user left off' or 'to get the exact saved text before editing it for update_brief'), and when not to (it saves nothing, runs no check, and saving is opt-in only via save_brief or update_brief). It also clarifies the use of include_text and version parameters with practical guidance ('a long brief is long'), and mentions the required API key.

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