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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine substance beyond that: the exact payload composition (markdown brief + cited sources) and a provenance caveat that claims reflect public sources rather than internal company statements.

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?

Two tight sentences with the return content front-loaded before the citation rule. Every clause carries information, though the Compass citation instruction is arguably closer to another tool's concern and slightly dilutes the core read description.

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 usefully enumerates what is returned (brief + sources) and flags the epistemic nature of the content. Combined with read-only annotations this is nearly sufficient, though the origins of studyId/reportId and any pagination or size limits are unaddressed.

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 only 33% (only workspace is documented), so the description should compensate more. It ties 'this report's id' to reportId for citation purposes but leaves studyId completely unexplained and never clarifies the studyId/reportId relationship, adding only marginal meaning.

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+resource ('Read a desk-research report') and immediately says what a single report contains ('One desk-research report in full: the brief (markdown) and the sources it cites'). The word 'One' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling prism_research_reports_list, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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?

It gives downstream usage context (cite sourceKind 'prism_report' with this report's id when placing claims on the Compass map), which tells the agent what to do with the output. However, it never states when to call this versus prism_research_reports_list or where the required ids come from, leaving tool selection to inference.

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