Read cited accounting library lines

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond them: the source is untrusted evidence, citations must be preserved, hash comparison may be needed, and section dates/scope should be checked. No contradiction exists.

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 description is five short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by workflow caveats and boundaries. Every sentence carries operational guidance, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given full schema documentation, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is operationally complete. It explains the read action, evidence-handling expectations, hash verification, and the non-advice boundary, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the word 'bounded', which loosely reflects line_count limits; path, line_count, and start_line are fully documented in the schema itself.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Read a bounded reference excerpt inside the configured local library.' It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_accounting_library by positioning itself as the read/verification step after search, not as a search or advice 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?

The description gives a clear context: read cited lines from the local library, compare the hash with the search result if the source may have changed, and check section dates/scope before applying. It also adds exclusions: 'Local reads only, not advice.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the workflow around search is implicit.

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