Read Specification Resource

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: unknown or unreadable names produce a tool execution error rather than a misleading error document, which tells the agent how failures surface.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence is slightly elaborate in explaining the error-vs-error-document rationale, but it earns its keep by documenting a non-obvious failure mode.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to establish scope and failure behavior, which it does. The remaining gap is not pointing the agent to list_enumerations for discovering valid resource names.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the load. It supplies examples ('mode', 'fields', 'all') that add meaning beyond the bare string type, but it does not enumerate the valid set, leaving the agent to discover names elsewhere.

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: reads an ADIF 3.1.7 specification resource, with concrete examples ('mode', 'fields', 'all'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_enumerations or search_enumerations, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied by the examples of resource names, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_enumerations or search_enumerations. An agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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