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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the payload is DECRYPTED, it shares get_timeline's plan schema, and a missing content scope returns 403.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary capability is stated first and each clause carries information (scope, filter dimensions, schema compatibility, auth requirement).

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 compensates by naming the return shape ('Same plan schema as get_timeline') and the auth precondition. What an agent needs to call it correctly is essentially present, with only minor gaps around the sibling content tools.

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 100%, so the three optional filters (node_type, valid_to_before, valid_from_after) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the node_type and date-range dimensions without adding syntax or semantics beyond the structured fields.

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: a temporally-ordered decrypted content view, filterable by node_type and ISO8601 range. It differentiates the content variant from its structural sibling get_timeline ('Same plan schema as get_timeline'), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_node_content or get_entity_content.

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 rather than stated: the 'content view' framing and the 'Content scope required (403 otherwise)' note hint at when the tool is usable, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance versus get_timeline or get_node_content.

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