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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavior: visibility filtering at read time, removed execution rows, 404 when nothing remains, role-specific access, test-summary restrictions, and one-year retention. It also discloses that the response is markdown with structured data attached and that cut lists end in 'and n more'. This is rich context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded and well structured into purpose, workflow, access, and output expectations. However, it repeats the title sentence, the latest-of-a-kind instruction, and the 404 behavior multiple times, so not every sentence earns its place. It is readable but more verbose than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value; it does so by stating that the result is markdown with structured data attached and by listing the kinds of content included. It also covers permission filtering, 404 conditions, retention, and test-summary access. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the `summary_id` pattern and format are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the workflow hint to pass the id returned by list_summaries; it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter 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 states a specific verb and resource: reading one summary by id, returned as markdown with structured data attached. It also distinguishes this tool from list_summaries by explaining that latest-of-a-kind requires list_summaries with limit=1 first. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly routes latest-summary lookups through list_summaries with `limit=1`, then says to pass the returned `id` here. It also gives permission-based conditions that lead to 404, so the agent knows both the intended workflow and failure boundaries.

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