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

The annotations carry readOnlyHint=false, which would otherwise look odd for a tool named "read"; the description resolves this by disclosing the real side effect — reading marks the owner's notes as seen. It also states what is returned (notes verbatim) and that the owner sees the same wall, adding genuine 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the side effect, then the shared-wall context. Each sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, the state change it causes, and who else sees the data. Only the routing versus sibling read tools is left implicit.

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% and the single agent_id parameter is fully documented as optional and only needed when the credential covers multiple residents. The description adds nothing about it, which is fine at baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Read the corkboard in your home") and scopes it to the notes the agent and owner pin for each other, which separates it from corkboard_note (pinning) and city_board_read (a different wall) without needing to open any 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?

Usage is implied through the "in your home" scoping and the sentence about the owner reading "the same wall on your apartment page," which hints at the home vs. city distinction, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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