read_notice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses that the plain-English version is generated on demand if missing, that this 'can take a minute' (latency), that objection language is quoted never composed, and that failed sentences are removed and counted. It omits permission/error behavior and what happens for an invalid id.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long colon-list of returned fields is dense rather than padded. The single run-on sentence packing the full return shape is slightly harder to parse than a structured list would be.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description steps up by enumerating the returned content, the generation/latency behavior, and the id source. Error and authorization behavior remain unstated, so it is strong but not fully complete for a zero-annotation tool.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter, so the description must compensate. It explains the id's provenance ('from find_notices_near'), which is meaningful semantics beyond the bare 'Notice Id' string, though it does not state the id's format or constraints.

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 and resource ('Read one notice by id') and immediately ties the id's origin to the sibling tool find_notices_near, letting an agent differentiate this read tool from the discovery tool without opening either schema.

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 parenthetical '(from find_notices_near)' clearly signals the workflow context — find first, then read — which is real usage guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, so it lands just below the top band.

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