get_reading

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the payload (text, HSK level, embedded vocabulary), but says nothing about auth, error handling for a missing/invalid id, or response size, which is a real gap for a lookup tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste; the purpose and return contents are front-loaded, and the id-provenance note follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 correctly compensates by naming what comes back, which is what an agent needs for a one-parameter lookup. Minor omissions (error cases, output ordering) keep it from being fully 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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must explain it — and it does, clarifying that the id is a reading id sourced from list_readings rather than a word id or level. It still does not state the id format, so not a 5.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one graded reading') and enumerates the returned fields (text, HSK level, vocabulary). The singular 'one' plus the pointer to list_readings makes it clearly distinct from the sibling list_readings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to obtain the required input: 'Ids come from list_readings', which routes it to the sibling listing tool as the prerequisite step. It does not state a when-not condition or failure behavior for unknown ids, so it stops short of a 5.

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