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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds an authorization requirement ('currently authorized private Space'), but the second sentence about reply/mention continuations and shared seen state is opaque and does not clearly disclose behavior beyond that.

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 definition is short, but the second sentence ('Reply and mention continuations belong to this task; shared seen state does not prove receipt') is cryptic and not clearly connected to the tool's operation. The first sentence is front-loaded, yet the second fails to earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description is still incomplete for an agent: it does not explain the two required parameters, differentiate this tool from list/get siblings, or clarify the confusing continuation note.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely implies that a private Space is involved. It says nothing about actor_id or the expected identifier patterns, leaving both required parameters semantically unexplained.

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 largely restates the tool name: 'Use get actor' adds no verb or resource beyond the title, and 'within one currently authorized private Space' only repeats the private_space prefix. It never states what an actor is or how this differs from siblings such as private_space_list_actors or public_space_get_actor.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no when-not conditions. The only contextual constraint is that the private Space must be authorized, which is not the same as usage guidance.

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