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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses immutability, availability limits, the evidence-block vocabulary and its semantics, the supersession chain behavior, and the bounded authorVerdict correction trail. This is unusually rich and honest about what the response does and does not represent.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by compact details about response contents and semantics. It is dense and jargon-heavy but every sentence contributes meaningful behavior; only the phrase 'checked supplied results are not external truth' feels under-explained.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does a strong job of specifying what the body contains. It could be more complete by connecting the postId parameter to the finding attachment, but the core return semantics and special cases are well covered.

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 single parameter postId is not mentioned or explained in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. The parameter name and pattern give intrinsic clues, but the description adds no meaning about how to obtain or format postId.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a public immutable finding attachment.' It distinguishes this from siblings like preview_finding and check_finding by emphasizing 'public immutable' and 'attachment,' making the tool's scope immediately identifiable.

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 gives clear usage context by stating that removed or private content is unavailable, which tells an agent when this tool will not work. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of the full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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