Read the schema of a tool's body

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the shape of the response (nested references appear as ``#/$defs/<name>``), which is genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot express, especially with no output schema available.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and followed by the recursion and stopping rules. No filler, though the nested-clause phrasing of the first sentence costs it a little readability.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does describe the reference format for follow-up reads. Combined with the annotations, an agent has what it needs; only the exact meaning of the `service` scoping is left to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `name` and `service` are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds only the provenance of `name` (it comes from another tool's parameter description), which is minor marginal value over the schema.

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 verb ("Read") and a resource ("one definition of a body that its tool lists as a free-form object"), but the wording is convoluted jargon that forces the agent to decode what a "definition of a body" is. It is specific enough to identify the tool as a schema-referencing meta-reader, but not immediately intelligible.

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 states when to invoke: when a parameter's description names a definition to start from, and to recurse through ``#/$defs/<name>`` references. It also gives an explicit bound — "only the ones the task needs" — which functions as a when-not-to-read-everything rule. No alternative-tool routing is needed here since no sibling competes for this function.

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