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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it returns the full rig structure, is owner-scoped, and requires Authorization: Bearer <JWT>. This gives the agent operational expectations without relying only on 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 sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, when to use it, and the access constraint. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, this is complete. It enumerates the returned rig components, explains the ownership scope, states the auth requirement, and gives concrete before/after usage contexts. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

The sole parameter is fully described in the schema as a rig UUID with rig_search as the listing mechanism, so baseline is 3. The description's 'your rigs' and 'Owner-scoped' notes add useful constraint information about which UUIDs are valid, raising it slightly.

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 ('Read') and resource ('ONE of your rigs in full'), and names its contents: steps, wiring, guards, and stage. This clearly differentiates it from listing/search tools and stage-only tools.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use it: before editing, to ensure changes are based on saved state, and after a run, to verify rig shape. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the use cases are concrete enough to guide an agent.

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