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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description warns that the data is untrusted citizen-authored content and that the CallToolResult _meta field carries a server-owned provenance boundary. It also states explicitly that the call changes nothing and can be repeated safely, adding genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Three compact sentences, all of which carry information: the purpose, the key behavioral caveat, and the read-only safety guarantee. The most important identifying information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant enumeration.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the action, resource, content categories, trust caveat, provenance mechanism, and safety profile. It falls slightly short by not clarifying the 'limit' parameter semantics or the default behavior, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly with no arguments.

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?

The schema contains one optional 'limit' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions 'limit' or explains its meaning, default, or how it affects the returned telemetry. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 names a specific action ('Read'), a specific resource ('public door-check telemetry'), and enumerates the exact content types returned. The statement 'No matched text is published' further disambiguates it from text-search siblings, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening other schemas.

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 clear context: this is a read-only telemetry accessor, not a text-matching tool. The phrase 'No matched text is published' is an explicit exclusion that helps an agent decide when not to use it, though it does not name an alternative sibling to prefer in that case.

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