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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declaring the safety profile, the description adds the key return semantics: the agent gets an argument schema plus an example call, which is essential given there is no output schema. It stops short of covering edge behavior, such as what happens for an unknown name, so it is not a full 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the capability statement is front-loaded and the routing instructions follow. Every clause earns its place by changing agent behavior.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload and the call sequence, which is the main risk of misuse. Missing only failure-mode context for unknown names, a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 100% and the single `names` parameter is documented with an example in the schema itself. The description only reinforces this with "tools you know by name," adding no format or batching guidance beyond the structured field, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve the argument schema and an example call for named Shiko tools. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings, since search_tools finds names and run_read/run_write execute them, and this tool only describes.

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?

"Call it before run_read or run_write" gives an explicit ordering constraint, and "use search_tools to find a name" names the alternative and the condition that selects it. Nothing about when to reach for this tool versus a sibling is left to inference.

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