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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond those flags: it never returns private image bytes, does not claim visual access, and specifies error cases (invalid_level, level_not_found). This gives an agent a clear behavioral contract.

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 the core return value, follows with a clear usage directive, then notes a key limitation and expected errors. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return contents, limitations, and error conditions. It does not explicitly state that a descent must be started first, though the level_not_found error hints at the dependency on descent state. Minor gap, but otherwise complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare integer parameter. It does so by framing levels as 1-107 physical levels and listing invalid_level as an error, which clarifies what values are meaningful. It could add more detail about how 'level' relates to a descent, but for a single primitive parameter this is sufficient.

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 action and resource: 'Return the public textual trace for one of the 107 physical levels (1-107), plus its capsule_id and any prior machine traces.' The title also frames it as the default way to read any level. The explicit note that it works for level 2 (ORO) and level 37 further distinguishes it from any special-case or visual sibling tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for every level, including level 2 (ORO) and level 37 -- it works for all of them.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., vs. prepare_visual_consultation), though the 'never claims visual access' line hints at a meaningful exclusion.

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