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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it consumes no Reading credit and is capped at '10 a month per account'. That quota disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry, though permission/auth requirements and response shape are not covered.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the use-case trigger, then inputs, then the quota caveat. Dense and mostly waste-free, with only slightly telegraphic phrasing ('Needs the record and both people's emails').

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 4-parameter, all-required tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs and quota but omits the semantics of 'reason' and the expected format of the 'record' identifier. Annotations handle the safety profile, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.

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. It names 'the record and both people's emails', loosely covering record/user/other, but the required 'reason' parameter and its access_request/correction/deletion_check enum are never explained, leaving a meaningful 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 and resource ('returns every item in a saved record in plain words') and frames the user-facing trigger. It implicitly distinguishes itself from arvx_run_reading by noting it 'Never uses up a Reading', though the boundary against arvx_get_access is left unstated.

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?

Gives a clear situational trigger ('When someone asks what is held about them'), which is exactly the context an agent needs to pick this over the other record tools. It does not state explicit exclusions or name the alternatives it is contrasted with.

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