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

The description explicitly guarantees that the tool 'Changes nothing,' which reinforces the 'readOnlyHint' annotation by providing a strong behavioral guarantee to the agent. This provides valuable behavioral context beyond the static hint provided 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 highly efficient and well-structured. It front-loads the function's purpose (Aide API read operation), provides the mechanism (via `list_operations`), and concludes with the critical safety status in just two concise sentences.

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?

The tool is reasonably complete for an agent's decision-making. It provides documentation links, defines the scope (read), and defines the constraints (no change). Minor gaps remain regarding expected return structures, but this is often handled by output schemas.

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?

Even with 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining that both the operation name and arguments are derived from the `list_operations` API. This tells the agent exactly where to look for valid inputs, providing critical context.

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 that the tool runs read operations from the Aide API. While it specifies 'read' operations, it relies heavily on the sibling tools and their names to distinguish it, rather than listing constraints on the operations it supports.

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 provides clear usage guidance by explicitly stating that the operation 'Changes nothing.' This strongly signals when the tool is appropriate (safe information retrieval) and when it is not (for state changes).

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