Read exact ICC Plus project paths

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: it guarantees exact preservation of CSS, HTML, JS, and unknown fields, and explicitly discloses that embedded assets are redacted by default. There is no contradiction between the description and the annotations.

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 a single information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource before delivering the key constraints. It includes no filler and every clause earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, the description could go further in stating the response shape or behavior for invalid/inaccessible paths, but the tool's purpose is simple enough that an agent can reasonably infer it returns the values at the requested pointers. The schema and annotations provide strong coverage of parameters and safety, and the description fills the important behavior gaps around exactness and asset redaction.

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 paths and include_embedded_assets, and the description reinforces and extends this by explaining that JSON Pointer reads preserve exact fields and redact embedded assets by default. This adds practical meaning to the include_embedded_assets parameter that the schema only describes as 'Return raw data URLs.' project_id is only constrained by pattern in the schema and not semantically described, but it is a standard identifier.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('RFC 6901 JSON Pointers' within an ICC Plus project), and immediately distinguishes the behavior from a full project read with 'without returning the complete project.' It also communicates the exactness guarantees (CSS, HTML, JS, unknown fields) and default redaction, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool—when an exact, targeted read is needed rather than the full project—via 'without returning the complete project.' It does not explicitly name alternatives among siblings such as iccplus_query or state when this tool should be preferred, nor does it describe excluded use cases, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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