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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds modest value by disclosing what the returned page contains (the run-facing wording, shipped wording, settings), though it says nothing about permissions, scoping, or failure modes.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler. Its nested parenthetical is slightly tangled but the content is front-loaded and there is no repetition.

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 reasonably sketches what is returned, which is the main gap it should cover. However, it omits the read/save pairing with save_an_act and the prerequisite of resolving act/job/tommo ids, leaving the agent to assemble the workflow itself.

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 each parameter's description already states where its value comes from, so the schema does the work. The phrase 'the workspace's own, or ours' hints that act wording may be scoped, but no additional parameter meaning is supplied.

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 conveys that this reads a single act's page and enumerates its contents (workspace or shipped wording, plus settings), but the phrasing is prose-like and never states a clean verb+resource. An agent can infer 'read one act' mainly from the title rather than the description itself.

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 statement of when to use this versus siblings such as save_an_act, read_a_job, or read_a_playbook_page, nor any prerequisite context. The only routing hint (ids come from read_a_job/list_tommos) lives in the schema, not the description.

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