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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that it returns a deletion tombstone and enforces audience checks. This gives useful behavioral context not captured in the 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that conveys all key points without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 read-only get tool, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (body, version, tombstone) and the audience checks. It lacks explicit mention of error cases or pagination, but for a single-entry retrieval this is adequate. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the descriptive return types.

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 schema fully covers parameter descriptions (the id example and detail enum). The description adds the phrase 'id is entry ID', but otherwise relies on the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3 and the description only marginally enhances parameter 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?

The description clearly states it reads the current body and version, or deletion tombstone, with audience checks. It uses the specific verb 'read' and identifies the resource as a space entry, distinguishing it from other get_* tools. However, it could more explicitly mention that this is for the current version only, given sibling tools like list_space_entry_versions.

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 mentions audience checks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_memory or list_space_entry_versions. There is no direction about detail levels or when a tombstone would be returned.

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