get_requirement

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the record value domain (requirement, recommendation, permission, guidance, deleted) and instructing the agent to report which kind it is — useful since no output schema exists. It says nothing about not-found or ambiguous-ID behavior.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by compact labeled parameter examples. It is longer than the bare minimum but nearly every clause is a distinct ID-format case that 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?

For a simple two-required-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers inputs thoroughly and characterizes the returned content, including the record `kind` taxonomy. The only real gap is the absence of guidance on unmatched or ambiguous IDs.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: both doc_id and req_id are explained with concrete formats and examples across multiple naming conventions (ECSS, NASA, DRD content, FCR items, n-th "shall" paragraph). This is well above the baseline for an uncovered schema, though the grammar remains loose rather than exhaustive.

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 ("Get the exact text of one requirement") with clear singular scope. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_requirements, so an agent must infer that this is the exact-ID lookup rather than the discovery tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: the heavy emphasis on precise ID formats signals that this tool is for when you already hold a doc_id/req_id. It never names search_requirements as the alternative, nor says what to do when exact IDs are unknown, so the agent must infer the routing.

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