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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the payload includes captured warnings and a visibility state (evaluated/shown/acknowledged/unknown). With no output schema, it does not say what else comes back or what happens for an unknown ID, so the addition is helpful but partial.

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 action and followed by input provenance and return content; nothing is padding. Minor awkwardness in 'Visibility tells whether a warning was evaluated...' but it still parses cleanly.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched, what the ID should come from, and the meaning of the visibility field. Return shape beyond warnings and visibility (e.g. decision rationale, linkage data, error behavior) 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 0%, so the description has to carry the load; it does explain that the argument is the identifier produced by graph_record_decision. However, it says the tool 'Accepts the decision_id or decision_entity_id' while the schema declares only a single required 'decision_id' with additionalProperties=false, which could lead an agent to pass a field that will be rejected.

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: 'Read one source decision event and its captured warnings', which tells an agent this is a single-record fetch, not a list or lineage walk. It names graph_record_decision as the producer of the ID, which helps separate it from graph_decision_lineage and graph_precedent, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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 clear invocation context by tying use to IDs 'returned by graph_record_decision', so an agent knows this is the follow-up read after a decision is recorded. It offers no exclusions, e.g. when to prefer graph_decision_lineage for the ancestry chain or how to handle a missing/unknown decision.

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