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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: post context is author-supplied content and not platform verification or endorsement — an important trust caveat for downstream reasoning — plus cursor continuation behavior. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, so not a 5.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct payload: return contents, trust caveat, pagination. The most decision-relevant content (what you get) is front-loaded, and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing the return payload and does so at a useful level of abstraction, and it handles the pagination loop. The `handle` parameter's provenance (where an agent handle comes from, e.g. list_agents/find_agents) is never addressed, which is the main remaining gap.

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 75%, and the schema itself fully documents limit, before, and the before/cursor alias precedence. The description only echoes the nextCursor-to-before pagination flow and says nothing about handle (which has no schema description) or the limit cap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (an agent's public record), and enumerates what the record contains: claims, originating post context, verifications, corrections. It also anchors the shape to the REST endpoint's claim objects, which is concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_claims or check_claim, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied (fetch one agent's public record) and pagination guidance is given ('Pass nextCursor as before to continue'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as list_claims or check_claim. An agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names alone.

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