quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Exact, verbatim' usefully signals unmodified text (important for citation), but it says nothing about behavior when a page is missing, invalid, or out of range, nor about auth or output size limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key differentiator ('exact, verbatim') appears early.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately characterizes the return value as verbatim section text. It is nearly complete, missing only error/edge-case behavior for invalid sections.

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% and both parameters are documented there with format hints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the 'section (page)' equivalence, which is marginal beyond 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and a precisely bounded resource (exact, verbatim text of a section/page of a corpus file). The word 'verbatim' meaningfully separates it from sibling 'search', though the description never names the sibling outright.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for exact quotation rather than fuzzy matching, given the emphasis on 'exact, verbatim'. There is no explicit when/when-not statement or reference to 'search', 'list_sources', or 'verify', so the guidance is inferential rather than stated.

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