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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful pipeline behavior beyond that: it is a data-reader source and its `record` output is intended to be wired into downstream nodes.

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 primary purpose and usage contrast front-loaded. Every sentence carries useful information: what to read, when to use it, and how to connect its output downstream.

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 has an output schema, rich annotations, and full schema parameter coverage, so the description need not explain the return shape. It adequately explains the tool's role in the pipeline, though it could say more about failure behavior or document lookup requirements.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters and nested `_subject` structure thoroughly. The description mentions the chosen document and the resulting `record`, but does not add parameter-specific syntax or selection rules beyond the schema.

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: reading a chosen project document as a record. It also distinguishes the tool from the implicit alternative of using whatever is currently open in the editor, which is exactly the sibling differentiation an agent needs.

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 clear usage context: use this when running on a specific chosen file rather than the editor's currently open document, and wire the resulting `record` into downstream `$subject`. It stops short of naming explicit alternative tools or exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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