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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it does not consume a Reading and is capped at 10 calls per month per account. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or what happens at the quota limit.

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 tight sentences: purpose, inputs, then cost/quota. The most decision-relevant information (what it does, what it needs) is front-loaded with no filler.

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 does say the return is 'every item... in plain words', which is adequate framing. But the unexplained required 'reason' enum and absent permission/auth context leave real gaps for a 4-required-param tool with nested objects.

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 carry the load. It explains 'record' and 'both people's emails' (user, other), but the required 'reason' enum with values access_request/correction/deletion_check is never mentioned, leaving one of four required parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 concrete verb and resource: returns every item in a saved record in plain words, framed by the user question it answers. It implicitly contrasts with a 'Reading' (the sibling arvx_run_reading) but never names the sibling outright, so differentiation is suggestive rather than explicit.

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 trigger condition is clear — 'when someone asks what is held about them' — which is a usable when-to-use statement. It hints at an alternative by noting it doesn't consume a Reading, but never states when to prefer arvx_run_reading or arvx_get_access instead.

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