read_data_module

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that verification always runs (XSD by default), that applicability is evaluated per block as applicable/notApplicable/undetermined, that without a product only display texts come back, and that assert expressions are never returned. It omits failure modes for a missing DMC and any size/truncation behavior beyond the schema's 5 MB note.

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 purpose and the "not XML" contrast are front-loaded, and the dense enumeration of return contents is grouped logically. The long parenthetical content list is heavy but every clause carries information an agent needs to anticipate the output shape.

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 9-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return shape (status block, block tree, references, verification) and the applicability model. What it lacks is error/edge-case behavior (unknown DMC, unresolvable BREX) and any note on node capping interacting with the tree.

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 adds real meaning beyond it by explaining the consequence of omitting `product` (undetermined, display texts only) and the semantics of the applicability evaluation that `omitNotApplicable` and `product` control. The verify and section parameters are left entirely to 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 and resource (read one data module) plus a differentiating scope ("as structure, not XML") and enumerates exactly what is returned: identification/status, body tree, references, and a verification status. An agent can distinguish it from list_data_modules and read_publication_module without opening any schema.

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?

Implies it is the structured-read counterpart to raw XML reading and points to describe_applicability for discovering product attribute/condition ids. It never explicitly names an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so routing is clear but not fully spelled out.

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