read_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about required permissions, what an episode_id represents, what happens when the section number does not exist, or the shape of the returned content.

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 short sentence with the core action front-loaded and a concrete example appended; nothing is redundant or padding.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin for a two-parameter tool. The unexplained required 'episode_id' and the undefined error/return behavior leave an agent unable to call this confidently.

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 must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies the format of 'section' (a number such as 2143.01) but leaves 'episode_id' — a required parameter with a non-obvious meaning — entirely undefined, which is the more consequential gap.

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 (read), resource (examination manual section), and addressing mode (by number) with a concrete example. It is distinguishable from search_rules and read_publication by the fact that it fetches exactly one section, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search_rules (which presumably finds the section number) or read_publication. The 'by number' phrasing weakly implies you must already know the identifier, but no condition, prerequisite, or alternative is spelled out.

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